Politics 2017 part 4

[BruceVC]

I wonder what this means for Rojava.

 

No, but seriously... I'm very sceptical. US intervention in the ME has not archieved the greatest results. I hope they prove me wrong, but I'm afraid that Assad's regime will be strengthened by US forces and thus allow Assad to further oppress his people; in the name of anti Islamic terrorism (again, similarly to how te US funded dictatorships to fight communism).

But we cant do anything about Assad, the West cant get involved in regime change in ME based on past history. The result is never appreciated or the change used constructively

 

So yes Assad will stay in power but at least he doesnt represent Islamic extremism like ISIS but he is a dictator 

 

 

Hopefully more Syrians can go home after this or at least we can reduce the number of Syrians leaving Syria ?

[Gorgon]

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

I'd like to point out that Wikileaks doesn't 'target' anyone. They publish leaks. If there had been a bunch of those from North Korea or China they would gladly have published those, but there aren't maybe because 'westerners' ,whatever that means, care more about government transparency and corruption. In other words it's a symptom of giving a **** about these things.

[BruceVC]

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

No my friend its not that but I can understand why you think that is what Im doing

 

My point has nothing to do with Russia or China, they were just examples. My point and issue is with Wikileaks, they claim to want to make governments more accountable and they are interested in  " the free flow of information " yet they only and consistently release information about the USA

 

How can this possibly be seen in anyway but a campaign to undermine the USA? So Wikileaks is not objective and who made them the judge and jury or what information the world needs to see about the USA ....and we dont even know what is true and what is not 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

No my friend its not that but I can understand why you think that is what Im doing

 

My point has nothing to do with Russia or China, they were just examples. My point and issue is with Wikileaks, they claim to want to make governments more accountable and they are interested in  " the free flow of information " yet they only and consistently release information about the USA

 

How can this possibly be seen in anyway but a campaign to undermine the USA? So Wikileaks is not objective and who made them the judge and jury or what information the world needs to see about the USA ....and we dont even know what is true and what is not

 

So send them data about Russians or Chinese, I am quite sure they will be happy to leak them as well, they leak what they got...

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

No my friend its not that but I can understand why you think that is what Im doing

 

My point has nothing to do with Russia or China, they were just examples. My point and issue is with Wikileaks, they claim to want to make governments more accountable and they are interested in  " the free flow of information " yet they only and consistently release information about the USA

 

How can this possibly be seen in anyway but a campaign to undermine the USA? So Wikileaks is not objective and who made them the judge and jury or what information the world needs to see about the USA ....and we dont even know what is true and what is not

 

So send them data about Russians or Chinese, I am quite sure they will be happy to leak them as well, they leak what they got...

 

I would never leak any information about any country through a medium like Wikileaks because I question their integrity and objectives 

 

They are not credible and have no legitimacy. If I did have information about China or Russia I would use the media like CNN or Reuters

 

But its not my place to decide what confidential information about any country needs to be distributed around the world 

[Guard Dog]

 https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-couple-hundred-us-marines-syria-225612067--politics.html

 

Very interesting development, US marines are being sent to Syria...so its a modicum of  " boots on the ground " 

 

 

What do you guys think? I think the USA  should stay out of Syria, apart from its current commitments, and the let the Russians and other ME  countries do the work

 

The good news is this will lead to a quicker annihilation of ISIS  in Raqqa which is there capital. Once this falls there utterly unrealistic objective of a " Caliphate " will be over 

100% opposed to sending Marines, or any other military asset into Syria. And I have been since the get-go seven years ago. If Russia wants to wade into that quagmire then let them. There are no "good guys" in that mess and the people you help today will be sending suicide bombers against you tomorrow. Beyond honoring our alliances with Turkey & Israel (like them or not they are alliances) the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it. Muslims love killing and oppressing other Muslims. Nothing you can do about that. The only thing to do is leave them to it to sort out themselves.

[BruceVC]

 

 https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-couple-hundred-us-marines-syria-225612067--politics.html

 

Very interesting development, US marines are being sent to Syria...so its a modicum of  " boots on the ground " 

 

 

What do you guys think? I think the USA  should stay out of Syria, apart from its current commitments, and the let the Russians and other ME  countries do the work

 

The good news is this will lead to a quicker annihilation of ISIS  in Raqqa which is there capital. Once this falls there utterly unrealistic objective of a " Caliphate " will be over 

100% opposed to sending Marines, or any other military asset into Syria. And I have been since the get-go seven years ago. If Russia wants to wade into that quagmire then let them. There are no "good guys" in that mess and the people you help today will be sending suicide bombers against you tomorrow. Beyond honoring our alliances with Turkey & Israel (like them or not they are alliances) the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it. Muslims love killing and oppressing other Muslims. Nothing you can do about that. The only thing to do is leave them to it to sort out themselves.

 

I agree with almost everything you say, the USA has no need to send ground troops into a hellhole like Syria and you right there really are no  " good guys " especially with all the factions within Syria. Personally I think troops are being sent to Syria as this is part of the misplaced view from Trump and some in his cabinet that the " USA  needs to do more in Syria "....I dont agree with that  

 

The  only strategic benefit is it will hasten the end of the war, this means less Syrians trying to immigrate into the EU or USA

 

Assad can stay in power, this is Iran and Russia's problem as they will need to fund his presidency as the Syrian economy is almost bankrupt 

[Chilloutman]

I dunno, I kinda like Kurds

[BruceVC]

I dunno, I kinda like Kurds

I also like the Kurds, they have been the most consistent and committed partner to the West in both Syria and Iraq

 

The problem with their political objectives is they want there own autonomous region and they want parts of Turkey to be included, this is highly unlikely this will be possible so I dont think they are being realistic around there goals 

[Ben No.3]

Would you want to help them?

[BruceVC]

Would you want to help them?

Are you asking if I want the Kurds to have there own region?

 

I would like them to but you also have to realistic, Turkey wont give up parts of there country. This is just not going to happen, Turkey is an important strategic country in the region and we need to recognize that

 

I am not sure on what historical context the Kurds want parts of Turkey but its extremely unlikely any country will just give up parts of there sovereign territory 

 

So lets say hypothetically I controlled the military might of the USA I wouldnt get involved in the whole Turkey\Kurdish conflict because it would involve a bitter and violent outcome and Turkey is a friend of the West in certain ways

 

Bennie nowadays when it comes to these interminable sectarian conflicts in the ME I believe the countries involved need to sort the issues out and the West should stay out 

[Ben No.3]

Trust me, I believe the same... just asking ^^

 

Of course, we can still offer humanitarian and economic help for the whole region. And perhaps diplomatic.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Ben No.3

[BruceVC]

Trust me, I believe the same... just asking ^^

 

Of course, we can still offer humanitarian and economic help for the whole region. And perhaps diplomatic.

Absolutely and we do through the UN 

 

The UN allocates tens of millions of dollars for relief efforts  to various conflicts in the ME and this funding comes from donor countries, take a look at this link to see which countries contribute the most. Its the USA  which contributes the most but I see Russia is on this list so good on them

 

https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/

Edited March 9, 2017 by BruceVC

[Guard Dog]

 

Would you want to help them?

Are you asking if I want the Kurds to have there own region?

 

I would like them to but you also have to realistic, Turkey wont give up parts of there country. This is just not going to happen, Turkey is an important strategic country in the region and we need to recognize that

 

I am not sure on what historical context the Kurds want parts of Turkey but its extremely unlikely any country will just give up parts of there sovereign territory 

 

So lets say hypothetically I controlled the military might of the USA I wouldnt get involved in the whole Turkey\Kurdish conflict because it would involve a bitter and violent outcome and Turkey is a friend of the West in certain ways

 

Bennie nowadays when it comes to these interminable sectarian conflicts in the ME I believe the countries involved need to sort the issues out and the West should stay out 

 

It's more than that. Turkey is a member of NATO. An independent Kurdistan on their western border is a threat to them because the majority of the population in the eastern regions are ethnic Kurds. They are concerned, with some legitimacy, that and independent Kurd nation annexes part of Turkey at some point. You have to remember, Turkey may be "on our side" and it is a ittle better than than many of the other nations surrounding it but it is not an egalitarian republican state by any means. Blood, ethnicity, and religion count for a lot. Tribal loyalty supersedes any kind of national identity in that part of the world.  That is an alien concept to most western nations nowadays.

 

The whole invasion of Iraq was a gargantuan mistake. But keeping it a unified country afterwards only compounded it. Iraq was an artificial country constructed by the post-WWI reorganization of Asia by the allies. The different ethnic and religious factions hated each other and had been killing each other for centuries. The only thing that held them all together at first was the British and then Saddam and the Baathists then the US Military. Once that was gone they couldn't start fighting each other fast enough. George W Bush and his advisers were idiots. The really thought there was a little American inside ever Iraqi struggling to get out. There isn't. The smartest thing would have been to break it up into three independent nations. Or failing that a confederacy of three completely autonomous states. But the biggest roadblock to that option was Turkey.

[213374U]

the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it.

Cheap gas, in an economy wholly dependent on oil, is actually very good. That's what the "protecting our interests abroad" part in the US military readiness report WoD posted means. Otherwise a two war-capable military would make no sense -- unless you are the aggressor, you never need to fight more than one war simultaneously.

 

Used to be wheat from Egypt, gold and silver from Bolivia and Mexico, etc. Now it's oil. If it weren't the US doing it, it would be someone else. Sucks for parents whose kids get blown to pieces by an IED and for homeless veterans crippled by PTSD, but hey, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[Guard Dog]

 

the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it.

Cheap gas, in an economy wholly dependent on oil, is actually very good. That's what the "protecting our interests abroad" part in the US military readiness report WoD posted means. Otherwise a two war-capable military would make no sense -- unless you are the aggressor, you never need to fight more than one war simultaneously.

 

Used to be wheat from Egypt, gold and silver from Bolivia and Mexico, etc. Now it's oil. If it weren't the US doing it, it would be someone else. Sucks for parents whose kids get blown to pieces by an IED and for homeless veterans crippled by PTSD, but hey, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

For what it's worth that "Two Simultaneous War" doctrine is a thing of the past. We stepped back from that in the 90's. The saddest part about what you just said here is everything in the ME that people fight over can be had right here in the Western Hemisphere in equal abundance if we could just get out of our own way.

[BruceVC]

 

the US has no business intervening in the middle east of far east. We've been doing it for seventy years and no good has come of it.

Cheap gas, in an economy wholly dependent on oil, is actually very good. That's what the "protecting our interests abroad" part in the US military readiness report WoD posted means. Otherwise a two war-capable military would make no sense -- unless you are the aggressor, you never need to fight more than one war simultaneously.

 

Used to be wheat from Egypt, gold and silver from Bolivia and Mexico, etc. Now it's oil. If it weren't the US doing it, it would be someone else. Sucks for parents whose kids get blown to pieces by an IED and for homeless veterans crippled by PTSD, but hey, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

Yes and there was a time where the ME  controlled most of the oil production in the world and was going to use it to achieve political objectives by forcing the West to do what it wanted in respects to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict 

 

The world doesnt work like that, you cannot control a critical commodity like oil and then try to force certain countries to do what you want. It would be like a country that had the only supply of water threatening " either you drop sanctions or we dont supply you water " 

 

So the words  " "protecting our interests abroad" use to be very relevant as the stability of the ME was paramount to how oil was supplied to the whole world

Thankfully the days of the ME  wanting to blackmail anyone over oil are over 

[Gfted1]

I dunno man, isnt roughly 84.7% of our country on "sacred land" of some sort? We cant even build a goddamn pipe.

[Guard Dog]

I dunno man, isnt rought 84.7% of our country on "sacred land" of some sort? We cant even build a goddamn pipe.

The need to write a bigger check. That solves all land problems.

[ShadySands]

Yeah, they should have kept the pipeline crossing near Bismark

 

Stupid complainers

[Gfted1]

Aye. Also apparently the island of Hawaii.

[213374U]

 

I dunno man, isnt rought 84.7% of our country on "sacred land" of some sort? We cant even build a goddamn pipe.

The need to write a bigger check. That solves all land problems.

 

It very well might. Problem is the costs are going to be passed off to those who can't pass them off to anyone else, i.e. you. So bye-bye cheap gas.

 

You might have everything you need right next door, but if the cost of developing critical resource X is greater than what it costs to buy it from whoever or going there yourself and taking it off the dead hands of the locals, it just won't be done, because market forces forbid it. Hell, 1980's USSR had (some of?) the largest oil and gas reserves in the world, but due to free-falling oil market prices, outdated technology and development difficulties, the strongly resource export-oriented Soviet economy crashed. And they didn't have to deal with protesters and environmentalists, just plain old competition.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

Except Wikileaks doesn't make " governments " transparent

 

 

They typically only  target the USA, where are all the leaks around Russia or China and these are much more intolerant and dictatorial governments than the USA

 

So its not about keeping governments in check, Wikileaks is a personal campaign to undermine the USA  and the West

 

This is ironically such a Russian response through and through.

 

Whenever someone in Russia exposes government corruption the typical response from pro-Putin camp is, "But in America/Europe/etc. they do this too. You're are targeting us. You're doing this to undermine our country. You're an American agent (just like Wikileaks is being labeled a Russian front) etc, etc..."

 

I'd like to point out that Wikileaks doesn't 'target' anyone. They publish leaks. If there had been a bunch of those from North Korea or China they would gladly have published those, but there aren't maybe because 'westerners' ,whatever that means, care more about government transparency and corruption. In other words it's a symptom of giving a **** about these things.

 

 

One of the other difficulties with getting stuff on China or DPRK is that you need to have someone who can verify the information- so you need to have someone who is both technically knowledgeable of whatever has been leaked but can also speak Korean or Mandarin fluently. That's not a trivial task as compared to english language info, and given that many would love for WL to publish something demonstrably incorrect to cripple their credibility.

 

 

It's more than that. Turkey is a member of NATO. An independent Kurdistan on their western border is a threat to them because the majority of the population in the eastern regions are ethnic Kurds. They are concerned, with some legitimacy, that and independent Kurd nation annexes part of Turkey at some point.

 

Turkey actually supports Kurdish independence, in Iraq, because they own the Iraqi Kurdish leader Barzani wholesale. Barzani sells them cheap oil on the sly, and Turkey helps him embezzle vast sums from it which ought to go to the central government. He's also Sunni, hates minorities (remember the Yezidis? His pet militia disarmed them, abandoned them to ISIS and genocide, and has now been outright attacking them recently for having the temerity to not want his Peshmerga running their security any more), allows Turkey access and basing plus Erdogan is a committed neo-Ottomanist, an independent Kurdistan can later be invaded if the PUK or PKK gets control there via the- permanently delayed- elections.

 

The facetious explanation of who wants an independent Kurdistan is that all four of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran want it- they just want it exclusively in the three other countries.

[Agiel]

Maybe just me, but I find it more than a little curious that Wikileaks rushed to the defence of Mike Flynn, who given an attitude towards Iran that can adequately be described as Ahab-esque and his lobbying on behalf of Turkey is hardly the paragon of an ideal WL has (or rather, claims to have).

[Zoraptor]

WL twitter outright trolls most of the time. The information from WL itself is accurate/ real, its twitter is all over the place.

 

The defence of Flynn can easily be explained by their loathing of the US intelligence establishment- which is fair enough, they're clearly mutual enemies- and them clearly leaking the info that got Flynn fired. The real irony being, of course, that WL didn't like that leak, albeit there's a big difference between an external group leaking information that can influence a country's politics (and the withholding of which would also tacitly influence it) and that country's intelligence community doing so.

 

If there's anything that came direct from the Russians I'd expect the latest 'leak' to be it. Some of the stuff about the CIA looking at false flags is convenient and can easily be seen as some pre-emptive deflection, plus some of the tools discussed have been available for six months so someone has had that info at least that long and it didn't go direct to WL.