When I came in Iran was a terror. We had 82 points of fighting. We had 18 points of major confliction. The first week I said, “Tell me about Iran.” “Sir, we have 18 points of confliction.” Meaning Yemen, Syria, Iraq, they’re going into Iraq all over the place. They’re a much different nation right now.
I stopped that horrible deal. And they want to talk except that Kerry violated the Logan Act. He made the deal and he doesn’t want them to make a deal because… I would have made a deal, in my opinion, except that John Kerry, who made the deal originally, which was a stupid deal to make. Gave them $150 billion, gave them 1.8 billion in cash, in green. That would be more than this room, 10 times, with $100 bills. You could fill up this room 10 times with $100 bills and it’s not that small of room....
When I first came in, Iran was going to take over the entire Middle East. Right now they just want to survive. They’re having protests every week. They’re loaded up with the plague, which I don’t want. I’ve offered to help them if they want. If they need ventilators, which they do, I would send them ventilators....
Right now they don’t want to mess around with us. They don’t want to mess around with us... And they want to make a deal. The only reason that they don’t, they’re being shamed because the guy that gave them the sweetheart didn’t want to…. met with him many times. He should have never met with them. And in my opinion, he’s telling them: Don’t. Wait. Maybe Trump will lose and then you can negotiate with a patsy — with a weak guy — and you’ll take over.
April 19, 2020
"When I first came in, Iran was going to take over the entire Middle East. Right now they just want to survive."
From the transcript of yesterday's press briefing:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
149 comments:
He's right on every point. Particularly galling is that John Kerry has anything to say to anyone about foreign policy. If anyone in our history needed to be cold-cocked, this is the guy.
He's saying that Iran is Cornpop.
Exactly.
I LOVED that he brought up John Kerry and his interference.
Debate preview. On just one country foreign policy difference. Devastating.
The Iranian Shia Mullahs who were putting their hopes in John Kerry are now facing Trump's American Space Force that got another 150 Second Lieutenants at the Air Force Academy Graduation yesterday.
Jean Fraud Kerry---what a guy. Just a gigolo-- a silly gigolo---who couldn't manage a single donut stand---but who can mess up foreign policy. A true treasure for the ages.
It was right for Trump to mention the Logan Act. But Kerry has a history of negotiating with foreign powers when he holds no legitimate office-goes back to early Viet Nam days.
Trump is the least presidential president in our history, but I’ll eagerly voted for him again. Still, his free-form verbal improvisations make my head spin.
I love it that he grins when he fights.
- Krumhorn
So what? Kerry did it and there's nothing Trump can do about it.
In 1968, Richard Nixon ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson. This was an obvious violation of the Logan Act, which bans private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation. Johnson was "furious" but otherwise powerless.
$18.12
Current price of oil, (wti)
Suck it, Iran.
And Russia and ksa and other bad actors.
Yes, our oil industry is hurting but we can stand it.
It is nearly the only source of income for iran, Russia and ksa.
John Henry
Has Trump become the indispensable man as described by Lincoln?
Imagine a world without re-set button Putin.
Imagine a world without communists who make viruses run wild... possibly on purpose.
Imagine a world without Islamic Supremacist Mullahs.
Imagine a world without Maduro or the Corrupt Castro family.
The deep state Dems love them some corrupt dictators and communist rulers-for-life. They enrich themselves off it.
That's the choice in Nov. An inarticulate orange man bad, or total corruption.
The Iran deal was among the most shameful acts of our the prior administration's shameful foreign policy record, and should be mentioned every time someone associated with that regime raises his or head in public. They're all of them shameless people, but perhaps those behind them can be made to feel some shame, or at least fear.
What disappoints me most about the Trump presidency is that he listened to “experts” who told him not to immediately get all of our troops out of Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. But at least he hasn’t got us into any new wars. (Hey, remember when Obama said we weren’t involved in “hostilities” in Libya, so the War Powers Act wasn’t triggered? Boy I miss having a president with that level of respect for the Rule Of Law.)
the south Vietnamese were our allies, they never get that. now the fustercluck of kennedy acquiescing to the diem coup, based on bad intelligence, is something else,
For Skeptical voter, damn well said.
Louis Prima said it even better. He described John Kerry to a T
I'm just a gigolo
And everywhere I go
People know the part I'm playing
Paid for every dance
Selling each romance
Oh, what they're saying
There will come a day
When youth will pass away
What will they say about me
When the end comes I know
They'll say "just a gigolo"
As life goes on without me
I'm just a gigolo
Everywhere I go
People know the part I'm playing
Paid for every dance
Selling each romance
Oh, what they're saying
And there will come a day
Youth will pass away
What will they say about me
When the end comes I know
They'll say "just a gigolo"
As life goes on without me
'Cause I ain't got nobody
Oh, and just nobody cares for me
There's nobody cares for me
I'm so sad and lonely
Sad and lonely, sad and lonely
Won't some sweet mama
Come take a chance with me
'Cause I ain't so bad
And I sing a sweet love song
All of the time
She will only be, oh-oh-only be
Bop dee bozee bop zitty bop
I ain't got nobody
Oh, and just nobody cares for me
There's nobody cares for me
Nobody cares for me
Nobody cares for me
Nobody cares for me
Nobody cares for me
John Henry
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Imagine a world without an "emergency stop" button
FIFY
John Henry
What do you mean there’s nothing he can do about it? If violating the Logan Act is illegal, then of course he can do something about it.
Apparently the Logan Act is a joke...
If a law is not enforced .... is isn't a law.. it's a guideline..
the fustercluck of kennedy acquiescing to the diem coup, based on bad intelligence, is something else,
It's OK. Spiros is busy rewriting that history.
Actually, it was based on no intelligence but you are otherwise correct.
Wikipedia: The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized American citizens with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.
18 U.S.C. Section 953:
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
"except that Kerry violated the Logan Act."
OK, so go after him.
But I also trust Trump's instincts at this point: better to expose and exploit the treasonous behavior than to make Kerry a martyr for pro-Iranian progs.
John F. Kerry.
JFC!
Maybee: " LOVED that he brought up John Kerry and his interference."
Same here. It also shows that nothing escapes him, that he is completely on to the games his opponents play, and that he is ready to fight, using his opponents' weaknesses. All expressed in non-pablum style.
@Spiros
Do you have a link to the source of your information about Anna Chennault?
I am strongly pro Trump on this issue. I agree with everything that he has said and here's exactly right hold out for a better deal past November.
This is why I don't get how you people can do everything in your power to sabotage the possibility of trump re-election. The social distancing has work so well it was going to create a complete nothing Burger that would demonstrate Trump made All the Right moves. Case closed election won.
IMO, you are making a sucker bet. If I believed in conspiracies I would say that the Deep state has probably infiltrated all of these protest groups and are encouraging them so that Trump will ultimately lose
As I say here almost every day:
When he's right, he's right.
Iran, China, Russia and Ukraine all want Biden to win and will do anything to get rid of Trump.
Confliction? It pays to enrich your word power. It really does.
"Has Trump become the indispensable man as described by Lincoln?"
No.
After he wins re-election, Barr should indict Kerry. We’ve got the tapes.
Personally, I'm very glad Trump finally put paid to the Islamic State — after Obama farted around, setting the stage in the first place for them (by abandoning Iraq), then treating them like they were the “VJ” (at war with them but unwilling to fight them seriously) for half a decade more. Trump ended that, and them.
"In 1968, Richard Nixon ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson. This was an obvious violation of the Logan Act, which bans private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation. Johnson was 'furious' but otherwise powerless."
He could (and should) have ordered his Attorney General to bring charges against Nixon.
How DARE you disparage John Kerry. Between his many years as Senator and his term as SoS he accomplished (just as a sample) these ten items:
Uhhh, these FIVE items:
Three? Anybody have three?
One? The Iran deal? Is that it?
He's right. Would love to hear Biden debate that with him, but there's no way that will be allowed.
A ValJar restoration would be good news for Iran.
JAORE said
His one accomplishment was to marry a dead Senator's rich wife, heir to a ketchup fortune. And that encapsulates the character of John Kerry in every single way.
Robert Cook said...
He could (and should) have ordered his Attorney General to bring charges against Nixon.
I assume the discover/disclosure phase of the prosecution would have been a problematic for LBJ.
a postscript. I wrote a piece on my own blog, about trump's first strike, against al queda, which happened in the village of yacla, all the usual suspects poo pooed it, of course it led to info about the laptop bomb, that ciamarella leaked to the press, but three years later the target was hit in the same general area,
Don't forget Jimmy Carter's inaction in the face of the Ayatolla's return to Iran, and the subsequent toppling of the Shah, that started the whole thing.
Not to mention his further inaction once they overran the embassy and took our people hostages.
The Democratic Party's failures in foreign policy is extensive.
"Personally, I'm very glad Trump finally put paid to the Islamic State — after Obama farted around, setting the stage in the first place for them (by abandoning Iraq), then treating them like they were the “VJ” (at war with them but unwilling to fight them seriously) for half a decade more. Trump ended that, and them."
Hmmm...Obama adhering to a departure date from Iraq negotiated by the Bush Administration is "abandoning" Iraq? BTW, to his discredit, Obama wanted the US to remain, and tried to negotiate conditions that would allow us to do so, but we would not agree to Iraq's terms--namely, that US soldiers who violated Iraq's law would be prosecuted under the Iraq legal system--so we had no choice but to leave. But we didn't really leave, not entirely, we left some "training" personnel, and over time we have poured more military back into Iraq, and now that Iraq's Parliament has explicitly told us they want us to leave--by voting to expel us--we won't, under threat by Trump to impose economic sanctions on them and to bill them for billions of dollars. (Heh! We invaded their country and fucked shit up and now we claim a right to bill them for it! The Mafia couldn't be any more creatively malevolent.)
Well...Invaders gonna be occupiers!
Howard said...
I am strongly pro Trump on this issue.
Welcome to the dark side!
Your concern about relaxation of distancing rules is why Trump egged the governors into asserting their authority.
"I assume the discover/disclosure phase of the prosecution would have been a problematic for LBJ."
Why? Because it would have potentially brought into public light the criminal nature of our entry into and ongoing presence in Vietnam?
Wince is diplomatic. If Johnson learned about what Nixon was doing because he was illegally wiretapping a political opponent, he would have a hard time defending that, and Humphrey would have had to.
Narciso,
You have a blog? Link please?
John Henry
From the transcript, I think Trump sacrifices clarity at the expense of his extemporaneous style. He's entertaining, but repetitive and superfluous at the same time which diminishes the impact of his message.
Trump is making an important point. When he came in we were paying Iran billions to be good, and they were still causing chaos and expanding their influence. We stopped paying them, never went to war big or small, and now they are on the ropes and quickly becoming impotent.
It's a great turn around and done in the best possible way. Trump has to tell us stuff like this, because when he says it on TV it's the only time most Americans hear it. Their press sure isn't going to inform them. They have other priorities.
I see Cook is busy rewriting history today.
Something your party is good at.
"Don't forget Jimmy Carter's inaction in the face of the Ayatolla's return to Iran, and the subsequent toppling of the Shah, that started the whole thing."
The Shah and his family had fled Iraq two weeks prior to the Ayatolla's return to Iran. The Shah fled because of massive unrest within his country and the mutiny of Iran's army. What could we have done to prevent this, and what right would we have had to do so?
"Not to mention his further inaction once they overran the embassy and took our people hostages."
What do you suggest he could have done more swiftly and decisively that would ensured the return of the hostages safely?
this was my last post before blogger made it impossible to update,
Obama was determined to leave Iraq — regardless of the conditions there, regardless of what then happened in the resulting vacuum. Obama appointed Biden to ensure that it was done, and it was. Obfuscations about how we “would not agree on Iraq's terms” are just that. We wouldn't agree, period. The rest is history — unfortunate history, for the area.
"I see Cook is busy rewriting history today."
Doctor K., (hmmm...Kafkaesque, eh?), I'm sure you would have been one of those who condemned Ignaz Semmelweis in his day for promulgating "fake science." You obviously hold to Reagan's thinking: "Facts are stupid things."
@Michael K., point of information. Cookie is so far off on the left wing extreme that he sees only negligible differences between the Democrats and Republicans.
But you're right about him -- and Spiros -- trying to rewrite history. There are plenty of lefties who fervently believe what Spiros posted at 9:21 but if you follow their chain of "proof" it's all supposition and "could have" crap. And Cookie just pulls things out of his ass.
Sending James Taylor to France after the terrorist attack also violated the laws of good taste.
Spiros, Trump isn’t Kerry, or Bush...or Nixon, so who gives a fuck about your tired old pablum?
That would be more than this room, 10 times, with $100 bills. You could fill up this room 10 times with $100 bills and it’s not that small of room....
I like how he describes the money so that listeners have to mentally picture the huge amount that it was.
Kerry is a caricature of the arrogant buffoon. He started his career perjuring himself before Congress with fictional tales of American war crimes and he has not changed a whit. He built a career on perjury, and of course was a media darling because a lot media careers were built on that perjury. He kissed Assad's rear end to stick it to the US, and no one should be surprised that he was pro-Iranian. Really, he is anything that is anti-American, heck anti-Western.
"His one accomplishment was to marry a dead Senator's rich wife, heir to a ketchup fortune."
You forgot that It was John Kerry who listened to President Richard Nixon on the radio, claiming that the US had no troops in Cambodia, while John Kerry was actually stationed in Cambodia! Pretty impressive, considering that LBJ was still President at that time.
I'm sure you would have been one of those who condemned Ignaz Semmelweis in his day for promulgating "fake science." You obviously hold to Reagan's thinking: "Facts are stupid things."
Cook is all in in the "Zinnification" of US history. Gramsci would be so proud of you.
You could read my history of medicine if you wanted to truly know how I felt about Semmelweiss but you prefer the lie.
I am amused at how radical leftists like you and Occasional Cortex can spout nonsense and call it "Science."
The Anna Chennault conspiracy theory is an early manifestation of Democratic theory that they never lose elections unless there was some massive conspiracy. Apparently they never lose elections unless there is wrongdoing. THere is never evidence to back it up, but no matter since the media will report it without questions -- Reagan was elected due to a conspiracy with Iran to hold the hostages until after the election and his inauguration, George W. Bush because of Florida conspiracies, and of course Trump with the Russia hoax. It is so much in the Democratic blood now that no one batted an eyelash at Hillary Clinton' insane conspiracy theories.
I don't see Trump winning many undecided voters with a spiel like that, yet there he is at the Presidential Podium. His prior few appearances were kind of subdued, but not this last one. I enjoy him the most when he's at his most combative and lays on the braggadocio, but, as noted, I don't see how it wins over the unbelievers. But, also as noted, he's President.....@Robert Cook: The Soviets were able to prevail in Hungary despite massive unrest and the disaffection of the Hungarian Army....Saddam was able to prevail to Iraq despite massive unrest,albeit not the disaffection of his thugs. The fact that the Shah fled proved that, by the standards of Mideast despots, he wasn't all that despotic.
What do you suggest he could have done more swiftly and decisively that would ensured the return of the hostages safely?
Bomb Kharg Island as the Joint Chiefs suggested.
"Obama was determined to leave Iraq...."
If he was so determined, why did we not really leave? Why did we put more troops back in? Why are we still there?
Not only should we have left completely and without delay in 2011--as negotiated by Bush--we never should have illegally invaded the country to begin with. You applaud an ongoing crime and condemn a milquetoast president who somewhat (but not really) adhered to a previously negotiated departure agreement between Iraq and the US. And yet, when Trump claims he will withdraw forces from overseas engagements--claims so far unfulfilled--his supporters praise him for wanting to remove us from foreign entanglements. If Trump actually did remove our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas where we are present, I would applaud him. (Not that I think he will, if only because even Trump accedes to pressure from the military/industrial complex.)
"Bomb Kharg Island as the Joint Chiefs suggested."
How would this have ensured the safe and immediate release of the hostages, (as opposed to, say, their immediate execution)?
"You could read my history of medicine if you wanted to truly know how I felt about Semmelweiss but you prefer the lie."
You're writing from today's perspective. If you had been a doctor in his day, how do you know what you would have thought?
"Has Trump become the indispensable man as described by Lincoln?"
Cook: "No."
When a marxist says "no", immediately think "yes".
The fact that the Shah fled proved that, by the standards of Mideast despots, he wasn't all that despotic.
A good friend of mine, who had fled Iran when the Shah was in power, was a classmate in medical school.
After he finished his orthopedic surgery training, about 1971, decided to take his family to Tehran to meet his parents. They flew from New York and arrived. In the Tehran airport, the SAVAK took him aside. They told him he had two choices. He could take his family back to New York without visiting, or he could serve his one year obligation in the Iranian army. If he did so, they could visit his parents and return when he wished.
He did his one year in the army where he was assigned as medical officer in an oil field. The guys in the oil field all played golf and he learned to play there. They had oiled sand greens and they carried a piece of Astroturf to put down to hit the ball from.
He practiced in Los Angeles the last 40 years and still plays golf.
That was the SAVAK under the Shah.
it would have discouraged them trying that again, as they did with the embassies a few years later,
“He's entertaining, but repetitive and superfluous at the same time which diminishes the impact of his message.”
Or drills it in to the LIV. I don’t think the rambling style is a quirk. If he hadn’t learned long ago that it worked for him, he wouldn’t do it.
If you had been a doctor in his day, how do you know what you would have thought?
But you know how I would react? Gramsci loved people like you who are liars,
“You're writing from today's perspective. If you had been a doctor in his day, how do you know what you would have thought?”
Now that is an unusual comment from a Lefty. Dead White Males everywhere cheer.
I suspect young Bob is more of an Old Left kind of Lefty than a SJW.
"When a marxist says 'no,' immediately think 'yes'"
What Marxist has said "no?"
I never quite understood the Obama Administration from supporting the Sunni side to supporting their mortal enemies, the Shi’a. Obama would seem to have been to naturally have preferred the Sunni side, having spent time growing up worshiping as a Sunni Muslim. Originally, I thought that it might have been the influence of Valarie Jarret, who spent time growing up in Iran, and apparently has a lot of Iranian friends. But the difference may be as simple as a change in who was Secretary of State. Crooked Hillary and her husband, no doubt, had ties to the Gulf oil money. But maybe more importantly the family of her closest advisor, Huma Abedelin, has had, and continues to have, strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Their family newspaper, founded by her father, continues to act as one of the MB’s primary mouthpieces. I have little doubt that she, a practicing Sunni Muslim, with close MB family ties, would have done whatever it took to keep her mentor siding with Sunni over Shi’a interests.
I don’t see right off the top, why Kerry reversed course so dramatically. Maybe he has some financial or personal ties that we don’t know about. Or, it could be his reflexive anti Americanism, that we saw so dramatically in regards to his dishonorable conduct involving our involvement in SE Asia (esp, of course, Vietnam). I do think that he was a much better fit with Obama, who seemed to share his reflexive anti-American views, as Secretary of State, as contrasted with Clinton, who was mostly just in it for the money, and the inside track for the 2016 Dem nomination.
The problem, I see, is that from our (the US) interests, Kerry’s and Obama’s position in regards to Iran was brain dead. Shipping all that money to them was stupid - they naturally rolled much of it into their funding of terrorism throughout much of the region. And, as a result, Americans died, esp military servicemen who had previously been placed in harm’s way by Obama. Doing the nuclear deal was just as idiotic - there was little incentive, under Obama, for the Iranians not to cheat, or at least have everything ready for rapid completion of nuclear weapons, when the deal was over. And we got essentially nothing for giving them a bunch of money, as well as lifting sanctions.
What Trump has done with Iran is what Obama and Kerry should have done. He walked away from their nuclear “deal”, allowing us to reimpose sanctions, then progressively tighten them. As well as levering the rest of the world (except of course, the Chinese and the Russians) to follow suit. Then he encouraged fracking, which resulted in eviscerating the Iranian government’s budget, giving them far less money to fund terrorism with. And he had American forces take out several key Iranian military leaders who were orchestrating their terrorism campaign, through their proxies, throughout the region. I loved it when they took out the Quds commander, at the Bagdad airport, in a country where we still had an active AUMF in force, and permission to use lethal force by its government.
No wonder Kerry is so butt hurt. Trump has visibly shown how really bad for the US Kerry really was as Secretary of State.
Robert Cook: BTW, to his discredit, Obama wanted the US to remain, and tried to negotiate conditions that would allow us to do so, but we would not agree to Iraq's terms--namely, that US soldiers who violated Iraq's law would be prosecuted under the Iraq legal system--so we had no choice but to leave.
What you are talking about is true of every SOFA — it is non-negotiable.
Robert Cook: Not only should we have left completely and without delay in 2011--as negotiated by Bush--we never should have illegally invaded the country to begin with.
I am looking forward to a detailed analysis of the status quo ante, and what your alternative course of action would have been.
Nothing was not an option.
"Why? Because it would have potentially brought into public light the criminal nature of our entry into and ongoing presence in Vietnam?"
And yet no one ever seems to name JFK....
WHy wasn't kerry charged with violating the Logan Act? Why wasn't Ted kennedy charged with violating the LOgan act in 1983, when he conspired with the Kremlin?
BTW, I wonder how many people in the USA give a damn about Iran?
"@Michael K., point of information. Cookie is so far off on the left wing extreme that he sees only negligible differences between the Democrats and Republicans."
Corrected point of information: you and Dr. K. and many others here are so far on the right wing extreme you cannot see that the Dems and the Republicans are greatly aligned on most issues of significance.
I agree that Cook is an old fashioned leftist of the Howard Zinn variety but he is also reflexively hostile.
Apparently, he picked up on the recent attention to Semmelweiss and tried to use it as some sort of slur. The left are all about "Science" when they adopt all these unscientific theories, all the way back to Lysenko. Stephen Jay Gould is popular on the left because he was a blank slate supporter. Behaviorism opposes genetics. Stephen Pinker refuted that pretty thoroughly with his twin studies in "The Blank Slate" but they persist in denying the laws of genetics. What it is all about now is race. White males are now the cause of corona virus, for example.
Sex is another hobby horse for the left. The women going through Ranger training in the Army have their records destroyed so no one can see if they qualified under the same standards. The military academies have had the Honor Code destroyed in the interests of "diversity."
And so it goes, downhill.
Aside: At the podium yesterday, he called out Maggie Haberman by name for being totally wrong in writing that he colluded with Russia. He said that she was wrong and that she won a Pulitzer Prize for being wrong. Has Maggie Haberman responded to this, or does she and the Pulitzer Committee still stand by her story?
you and Dr. K. and many others here are so far on the right wing extreme you cannot see that the Dems and the Republicans are greatly aligned on most issues of significance.
Another lie. I have been posting about Angelo Codevilla's "The Ruling Class" for several years.
Why don't you read it and learn something besides Gramsci?
"I am looking forward to a detailed analysis of the status quo ante, and what your alternative course of action would have been.
"Nothing was not an option."
"Nothing" was the only correct option. We had no reason or valid basis to invade Iraq. There were no dire consequences pending for us that required us to act at all, much less immediately.
jfk is like pericles in the pelopennessian war, Thucydides was like general taylor for perspective, he puts most on the blame on cleon and Nicias, who came later,
"Why don't you...learn something besides Gramsci?"
Talk about not knowing what you're talking about! I've never read Gramsci, (or Marx, or Engels, or Lenin, etc., etc.).
Codevillas long dialogue with david samuels In the tablet, is a companion piece to ruling class, it can be argued however what was our strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan,
"I agree that Cook is an old fashioned leftist of the Howard Zinn variety but he is also reflexively hostile."
Hahahaha! You, Dr. K., are projecting! You are not quite as reflexively angry and, uh, "hostile" as Shouting Tom, but you are often not far behind him.
Me? I'm always even-tempered and often light-hearted when I post here.
'you're soaking in it' Gramsci's influence is all around you,
“What do you suggest he could have done more swiftly and decisively that would ensured the return of the hostages safely?”
“Bomb Kharg Island as the Joint Chiefs suggested”
The other thing that Reagan was supposedly talking about was going in heavy, using Daisy Cutters to open LZs - in downtown Tehran. Probably just talk - but it was Reagan. Khartoum Island would probably have been the better option though. With crazy Reagan in the White House, they probably couldn’t afford to execute the hostages in reprisal, because his reaction to that would likely have been rather costly on their part. Remember how quickly his successor took out the Iraqi air defenses and Air Force? Iran had, at that time, a fraction of that. And had just lost their top level commanders, as well as a number of their pilots (I know one of those pilots, who fled here, as did his uncle, who had been the Shah’s Chief of Staff).
"Apparently, he picked up on the recent attention to Semmelweiss...."
No. I was unaware any recent attention had been paid to Semmelweiss. I was made aware of Semmelweis years ago when I was reading about a writer I admire, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, a doctor himself whose first published work was his thesis, a study of Semmelweis.
When I first came in, Iran was going to take over the entire Middle East. Right now they just want to survive."
Like Trump's earlier claim about North Korea, this is complete bullshit. The most frightening thing is that rather than just doing campaign schtick, Trump may actually believe this. If so, it shows how easily Trump can be swayed by unreliable information and by the hardliners in his administration.
Iran is a relatively weak regional power. It has practically no ability to project military force outside of its borders. It has never been in a position to "take over the entire middle east." Between Turkey, Israel, the Gulf Arab states, and fractured Syria and Iraq, no country is in a position to "take over" the region. What Trump even means by "take over the entire Middle East" is not even clear.
The most significant increase in Iran's ability to operate in the region were the elimination of two of its foes: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Unsurprisingly, the same hawkish interventionist who supported those wars are still telling us what to do about Iran and still getting things wrong. The assassination of Soleimani was to "restore deterrence," and yet just last month two US soldiers were killed and more than a dozen seriously injured in rocket attacks on Camp Taji that have attributed to Kata’ib Hezbollah, though a new Shia militia calling itself the "League of the Revolutionaries” has claimed responsibility. A major escalation was planned in retaliation, but General White and other coalition forces voiced concerns, and the planned was scuttled in favor of a smaller retaliatory that ended up killing three Iraqi soldiers, further agitating the US-Iraq relations.
“WHy wasn't kerry charged with violating the Logan Act? Why wasn't Ted kennedy charged with violating the LOgan act in 1983, when he conspired with the Kremlin?”
Because it very likely violates the 1st Amdt. This has been well accepted for a very long time. There have been two people charged with violating the Logan Act in the over two centuries since it was enacted, and neither one was convicted, and the latter of the two indictments was over a century and a half ago.
Why is Trump concerned about a law that the DOJ cannot charge anyone under because their rules require that there be a likelihood of success of conviction before charges can be filed? Because it was used repeatedly against him, and in particular against George Popadoplis and Carter Page. Crossfire Hurricane was built on jumping back and forth between the FBI’s national security (counterintelligence) and criminal roles. The Steele Dossier, as well as the fabricated testimony of Alexander Downer, were used for the counterintelligence justification, while the Logan Act and FARA (which violations essentially always resulted in civil fines in the past) were used to justify the criminal side of the investigation. They never expected to charge anyone with these statutes (because DOJ rules shouldn’t have allowed it - but did, in the case of Gen Flynn and FARA). That didn’t matter. They had statutes on the books, that had not been invalidated by the courts, that they could make credible arguments that they had probable cause to support each of the required elements. This, BTW, is one of the reasons that I think that Lawfare was involved - that is just the sort of thing that they do - misuse criminal statutes.
Say what you want about Trump but he's 100% right about our relationship with Iran and North Korea. He has exposed them as weak.
Iran is a superpower in the Middle East, 2nd only to Israel. To believe otherwise is naive, as Iraq under Saddam found out. Even in the throes of Khomeini's revolution and the purge of the senior Iranian generals, they were more than a match for Iraq. Remember how the media said Bush would get us in a quagmire if we invaded Iraq? Well, Iran would be a debacle.
Robert Cook: "Nothing" was the only correct option. We had no reason or valid basis to invade Iraq. There were no dire consequences pending for us that required us to act at all, much less immediately.
So many things you so blithely ignore.
So does Farmer.
@Charlie:
Say what you want about Trump but he's 100% right about our relationship with Iran and North Korea. He has exposed them as weak.
The relative weakness of Iran and North Korea was well known and commented on long before Trump. And how does exposing Iran as weak jive with his claim that they were on the verge of "taking over" the region?
@Hey Skipper:
So does Farmer.
Even granting the premise that "nothing was not an option" (which I don't, since "nothing" was not what we were doing), that is not an argument for what was done.
Robert Cook said...
Talk about not knowing what you're talking about! I've never read Gramsci, (or Marx, or Engels, or Lenin, etc., etc.).
Amazing!
So who do you read to learn about socialism, national and/or international?
You talk as if you know what socialism is.
Where do you get your political ideas from?
John Henry
@alanc709:
Iran is a superpower in the Middle East, 2nd only to Israel. To believe otherwise is naive, as Iraq under Saddam found out. Even in the throes of Khomeini's revolution and the purge of the senior Iranian generals, they were more than a match for Iraq.
Believing that the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War demonstrated that Iran was a "superpower" seems odd considering the demoralization and destruction the war wrought. If anything, it more demonstrated that Iraq was a paper tiger. On what basis can it be claimed that Iran is a "super power in the Middle East"? What is the source of this power?
One of the populsr myths about the Pentagon papers and nixon's attempt to censor them is that he was trying to cover his own ass. Even the NYT, at the time, tried to give that impression.
It's good to remind ourselves from time to time that the Pentagon Papers only covered up to 1968. Nothing to do with Nixon at all.
John Henry
And ellsberg had been in thick with conein and co, until fairly recently. They had protected him from vengeful caid (corsican mob boss) by getting him out of the country
“IMO, you are making a sucker bet. If I believed in conspiracies I would say that the Deep state has probably infiltrated all of these protest groups and are encouraging them so that Trump will ultimately lose.”
I’m keeping hope alive, Howard. Seeing all those complete idiots out in the streets loudly yelling sputum flying stupid slogans in each other’s faces is a scene that can be used in political commercials after showing Trump’s tweets encouraging them to “LIBERATE!” their states during a time of pandemic.
After appearing so leader-like at times during the press briefings, what a shame. He always steps on his own toes. He erased what grudging respect I grew to have for him during this pandemic. And there are millions of voters who are disgusted with his latest idiocy, encouraging people to go out into the streets to protest, risking their dumb lives. Hopefully they won’t infect innocent people.
“Hahahaha! You, Dr. K., are projecting! You are not quite as reflexively angry and, uh, "hostile" as Shouting Tom, but you are often not far behind him.”
He, MK, is not very observant.
J Farmer: Even granting the premise that "nothing was not an option" (which I don't, since "nothing" was not what we were doing), that is not an argument for what was done.
You have missed the point: the status quo ante was reaching a dead end, which is why nothing (i.e, continuing what we were doing) was not an option.
Provide an alternative course of action, and substantiate it. Stay away from 20-20 genius.
@Hey Skipper:
Provide an alternative course of action, and substantiate it. Stay away from 20-20 genius.
I opposed the Iraq War exactly on the grounds that it would be a quagmire. Dick Cheney defended the decision not to push for regime change in the First Gulf War on the grounds that Iraq would likely break apart and the other countries would rush in to fill the vacuum, which is exactly what happened. There is no "20-20 genius" required. I also don't accept your premise that "the status quo ante was reaching a dead end."
Inga and Cook are so observant they can read minds.
I will admit I do not suffer fools easily.
"So many things you so blithely ignore."
Not ignoring at all, just never convinced by it, then or now. It was nakedly obvious to me at the time to be a calculated propaganda campaign to convince Americans to go along with what was obviously an unnecessary and bad action. Hussein was known to be effectively powerless at the time, (as well as having no complicity with 9/11 or alliance with Muslim extremists), so all the huffing and puffing about "smoking guns in the form of mushroom clouds" and double talk insinuating (without asserting) Hussein was involved with 9/11 struck me as blatant lies. I was right then and I'm right now.
“I will admit I do not suffer fools easily.”
Then how can you stand yourself?
"I've never read Gramsci, (or Marx, or Engels, or Lenin, etc., etc.)."
Telling, isn it, that even one of the few somewhat serious lefties here has so little grasp of his own tradition.
What are we deplorables to do about lefty ignorance? How can we have a serious argument?
What are we deplorables to do about lefty ignorance? How can we have a serious argument?
You need to pursue those discussions in real life.
Iran, Russia, China, etc. All totalitarian systems seem to be viewed in equal light with the USA or Western developed economies by the MSM. I really don't get this? History is littered with the corpses of Totalitarian Regimes'. One just has to wait. Because such regimes don't generate the wealth and income. Please don't cite China. With 65% of China's GDP derived from 'Real Estate' that's not wealth creation. That's derived from trillions in 'Debt' which will collapse China's economy. But the 'Media' needs to report a 'Devil' [competitor] for our system. That's in the DNA of MSM - 'if it bleeds it leads' they don't have any other way of existing.
"Blogger alanc709 said...Iran is a superpower in the Middle East...as Iraq under Saddam found out.4/19/20, 12:38 PM"
You've produced an opinion with no facts or analysis. Let me help you! Both Iraq and Iran fought an 8 year war in the 1980s which ended in a stalemate. Populations at that time where - Iran - 47 million - Iraq - 16 million.
Now what does this tell you about your "Superpower" opinion. Both of thee countries couldn't beat anyone let alone themselves. Why? Easy, poor soldiers (all conscripted) and poor outdated equipment.
Your opinion, Sir/Madam is not even worth your effort at posting it on AA's site - sorry.
@Sebastian,
Telling, isn it, that even one of the few somewhat serious lefties here has so little grasp of his own tradition. What are we deplorables to do about lefty ignorance? How can we have a serious argument?
What's even worse is the corollary to this ideological ignorance: the view on the (mostly moderate) Left that their ideology is simply Reasonableness in political action (e.g. see the nom de plume of "A Reasonable Man", who most of us view as anything but). From this ignorance of ideology comes the view that anyone who disagrees with them is not a philosophical opponent starting from very different foundational assumptions, but rather someone who is irrational or evil or both. The Marxists may have thought that the iron laws of history were on their side, but they understood that the bourgeoisie & the lumpenproletariat not only had different views, they had to have different views.
But nowadays, ideology is thought to arise from the quotidian experience of "slighted" minorities, and it can not be gainsaid by someone outside the group. It is the very epitome of the plural of anecdote being data, or in this case, ideology. That's why we are "deplorables" & Trump is "insane".
This is how i see it,
Iran is in full control and will not bend to any pressure the Cheeto tries to enforce.
North Korea will continue to do short range NUCLEAR endeavors and will not be influenced by anything Trump says.
China will continue as they have for the last 70 years, lying to the USA about everything and, more importantly, getting away with it. These "beautiful" tariffs that Trump has been imposing on the Chinese will will not even make a dent in their economy. The "tariff" money that the farmers have gotten, they have not gotten. Tariff money cannot be redirected to anyone. All the money the farmers are getting is the money that should have been put to fix freeways, bridges and city streets all over the country. With Trump it is all smoke and mirrors. Nothing done, never will get done.
Vicki from Pasadena
Robert Cook said...Corrected point of information: you and Dr. K. and many others here are so far on the right wing extreme you cannot see that the Dems and the Republicans are greatly aligned on most issues of significance.
Up to about 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you—only a very narrow sense of what’s possible could lead someone to conclude that it matters which party is in charge (a witticism I wish I could take credit for: the United States has only one political party, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them). But since about the time of Obama, the Democrats have been captured by the hard left. I don’t believe the Dem’s radical base represents a significant voting block, but for...reasons...the leadership cowers in fear of offending it.
Mary Beth (the commenter) @ 11:02: I share your interest in Trump’s move to “show” the listener what $1.8B looks like. My back-of-envelope is that it would occupy about 6,000 cubic feet: filling a space 30’x20’x10’. I don’t happen to have $100 bills in 100-bill stacks (a “brick” of $10,000) but I think it would occupy roughly 3” W x 6” L x 3” H and so you could get 2 x 4 x 4 (=32) of them into a cubic foot. That’s $320,000 per cubic foot, and you need $1.8 B or about 3.2 bricks/$million x 1,800 $million of them or 6,000 cubic feet. I ignore compression from shrink wrap and the space required for pallets.
Not sure what they would weigh but I guess we could get that load aboard a C-5 as promised by Obama in his secret midnight deal.
I wonder if any of those pallets fell off the truck?
Bottom line, Trump is an entertainer, he understands both words and pictures, and here he leaves the audience with a visceral sense of what was given. In exchange for what?
Discussing leftist ideology with a commie is like discussing the non-existence of engrams to a Scientologist. You may have really good arguments, but were you expecting them to see the perfection of your logic and become unshackled from the prison of their ideology? Fat chance. In the final analysis, the left is tribal; and all that rhetoric is deployed to defend the tribe by any means necessary. When the left is forced to back away from a position (like plastic bags at grocery stores or use of high density public transportation) they fall back and regroup. It has nothing to do with reason or facts or truth. The left is at its core anti-intellectual. It explains why they see their opponents as evil, not stupid or misinformed.
"China will continue as they have for the last 70 years, lying to the USA about everything and, more importantly, getting away with it."
I don't know how you know China lies to the US about everything, but it is SOP for all governments to lie to their own people and to each other. We are no exception.
This is why we have the Logan Act:
Having conspired with Nixon to scuttle Johnson’s peace process, Thieu was in the position to blackmail the new American president. Thieu emerged from the Chennault Affair “convinced that Nixon owed him a great political debt” and “attached great weight to it throughout” the Nixon years, Bundy concluded. It was “the most important legacy of the whole episode.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
hey Vicky's how Pasadena, I've been hearing soviet, maoist Sandinista propaganda for at least the last 30 years, I've mentioned Marchetti's the rope dancer, which was classified largely because it painted a very foolish portrayal of the agency, one wonders if Aldrich ames read it galleys, it presaged Christopher boyce's rather self serving rationales, there's a twist at the end, that is worthy of a coen film,
Field Marshall vicki: "Iran is in full control and will not bend to any pressure the Cheeto tries to enforce."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Really. Funny stuff. Well done.
BTW, how did the wake for Soleimani go? Lots of attendees?
Michael K: "Inga and Cook are so observant they can read minds."
I really have to say that I don't blame Inga for mis-reading Mueller's mind for basically 3 years.
We all saw how Mueller performed so is it any wonder that a Mind Reading Master like Inga, once she had peered into that grey mass, got so many things wrong?
I do think that Inga's best mind-reading performance was knowing Carter Page was a spy when even the CIA and FBI proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't.
Perhaps Inga's greatest performance ever.
interestingly aaron Latham's flowers for mother, from the village voices congressional correspondent, took a similar track he also made angleton a sort of antihero, as opposed to his protagonist, most accounts paint him as paranoid, or worse, but it's yet another narrative,
one was struck about the long time Iranian mole, nurga witt, who had slipped out of the country, with little note for six long years, it was around the time that snowden was canonized on his trek to Russia, which echoed Edward lee howard, 30 years before,
"So who do you read to learn about socialism, national and/or international?"
I have better things to do with my time than reading to "learn about socialism, national and/or international."
"You talk as if you know what socialism is."
When have I spoken explicitly about socialism, as such?
"Where do you get your political ideas from?"
From my sense of honesty and fair play. I look at the world and keep in mind that the few will always attempt to control the many and the rich and powerful will always seek to cheat and steal from the poor. (And, to the multi-millionaires and multi-billionaires who make up the 1% of the 1%, all of us who work for salaries--not to mention hourly wages--even those who are comfortably "middle-class" and are seen (and see themselves) as "affluent," are the poor.)
of course the Chennault mission can be read another way, she was like Jacob marley, reminded thieu what being thrown under the bus was like, Johnson was collaborating with our enemy who were backed by china and the soviet union,
one has to understand the enemy, the north regarded the south as illegimate, the near enemy, in other parlance, so their goal was to crush the south and do what happened in 75, in Saigon and Vientiane and the Cambodian capital, likewise the Taliban will do what it did back in 96, including murdering the tadjiks and hosting al queda, a scorpion doesn't forget to sting, now when it happens don't act surprised
Interesting question why Obama supported Shia, vs. Sunni.
Obama supported against the status quo. So he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and the color revolutions through out the Arab World. He supported Iran, since he saw them as victims of American Imperialism, and the original sin of the Mosaddeq coup.
He saw the Gulf States, and their client states, as corrupt countries that needed to have their governments replaced with more Democratic Ones. And he believed the Muslim Brotherhood offered that. He saw Saudi Arabia as a corrupt state, and supported their enemies.
Turkey, he supported the current President, that is Sunni. Turkey's President Erdogen has supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and has done a huge amount, to de secularize Turkey, and make it more Islamic. Obama kept good relations with Turkey, and was used by Turkey to give supplies to Syrian Rebels, that Turkey controlled which faction got.
Israel was seen as more of a colonial force of occupation, and treated as such by the Obama administration. And an obstacle to Obama's efforts to create a new balance of power in the Middle East, which included Iran. Currently Israel dominates the Middle East from a military prospective.
The Taliban and Al Queda have basically merged.
There are different factions of Al Queda, one supported by Pakistan, One that wants to overthrow the Pakistani Government, and ISIS that I regard as another Al Queda faction.
The key is Pakistan.
I don't see any good options in Afghanistan. It's hard to believe the US has been there over 18 years.
One Sci Fi book I read joked about how great the Pork Dumplings were in Afghanistan, after the Chinese took it over, because of an attack in China traced back to Afghanistan.
I skipped to the end and missed several intelligent comments because I was laughing about Cookie bringing up Dr. Semmelweiss. Dr. Semmelweiss would fit in right today (even though he practiced in Vienna in the 1850s) because his message was "Wash your hands".
It was good advice then to prevent the spread of often fatal fever among women who had just given birth---and is good advice today when you've touched a surface that might have the virus on it.
With Cookie a little knowledge is dangerous thing.
that' the Taliban, which is just another iteration of deobandism, going back about two hundred years, you could ask those looking for the fakir of Waziristan, he died in bed in 1941, Churchill and the mad mullah of malakand, the survivors of the buner expedition in 1857 and the dr Bryden in 1842
"With Cookie a little knowledge is dangerous thing."
If you're trying to be insulting, I'm afraid I'm too puzzled to feel any sting (speaking rhetorically). I have no idea what the point of your comment is supposed to be.
Trump has mitigated the progress of Obama's greater Middle East wars. Although, quid pro Bo is done, and over, but I suppose the sacrifices made to prop Obamacares (e.g. redistributive change, denying claims, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform) can, eventually, be reversed by other means.
"I don't see any good options in Afghanistan."
The only option is to immediately remove all US troops and personnel from the country, (and any and all "private contractors," if any are there).
As with Iraq, we never should have invaded Afghanistan, and, to the extent our purpose was actually (rather than merely purportedly) only to capture bin Laden and his men, then we should have vacated the country immediately upon bin Laden's escape from Afghanistan.
if you relied on friedman, wright, sciolino, you missed the boat on iran, on soviet affairs if you followed Talbott at time, practically every one at the times, or the post, re central America dickey, gutman, and co, (gutman also bought the narrative about those brave Syrian rebels, who defected before the check cleared) bonner was an fmln fanboy, Shirley Christian was an exception,
narciso
bonner was an fmln fanboy, Shirley Christian was an exception.
I purchased her book on Nicaragua ( Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family). She made the point that the Ortegas, though they toppled Somoza, copied some of his methods. Some Nicaraguan pointed out to Shirley Christian that the same people who were involved with the Nicolasa- Somoza's mobs- also were on the Sandinista neighborhood watch committees. Similarly, Somoza had his mobs - Nicolasa- and the Sandinistas had their mobs- Turbas Divinas (divine mobs).
So when the Comandantes expropriated mansions for themselves after they lost the 1990 election- four to five years after Shirley Christian published her book- I was not surprised. That's just what Somoza would have done.
Farmer: I also don't accept your premise that "the status quo ante was reaching a dead end."
From the link:
— Southern Watch, the long term, large scale air operation based primarily in Saudi Arabia to stop Saddam's bombing attacks on Shia in Southern Iraq.
— Northern Watch, a similar operation to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq.
— Ongoing futile attempts to ensure Saddam's compliance with WMD inspections, which led to a series of UN Security Council resolutions promising severe consequences in the event of continued defiance.
— The Oil for Food program (OFF), which was established to stop Saddam from re-establishing his military, while not causing additional suffering among the Iraqis themselves, and which Saddam was using as a cudgel against his own people in order to undermine the coalition against him.
— The French, Chinese and Russians were actively using OFF to undermine the sanctions.
— Massive UN corruption related to OFF was causing what had previously been thought unimaginable: further besmirching the UN's reputation.
— Saddam was actively funding Palestinian suicide bombers
— Saddam was also routinely shooting at coalition aircraft enforcing the southern and northern no-fly zones.
This list could go on, but it should be sufficient to support this conclusion: the sanctions regime and aerial occupation of the northern and southern thirds of Iraq, which had gone on for a decade, had reached a dead end — something was going to replace it.
Now, you may not agree it had, as of 2003, that our status quo ante policies had reached a dead end, but they were going to, and the US had to either choose and alternative course of action, or have one forced upon us.
The problem with you and Cook is that you are, in effect, arguing for a null.
BTW, what I mean by avoiding 20-20 genius is taking into account only what was knowable at the time in making the decision to invade Iraq, including taking into account all the potential downsides of not doing so.
Farmer: Like Trump's earlier claim about North Korea, this is complete bullshit.
Except that it isn't.
Trump is the first president in the last 30 years to do what should have been done all along: when provoked, wave the single-digit salute at the regime. Instead of paying Danegeld, Put the Norks on disregard.
That they are nearly impotent as a result is no mean feat.
So the Logan Act is moot because the illegal act is covered by the First Amendment? What, pray tell, is the verbal part of sedition? Why isn't that protected? Or is it?
THEOLDMAN
I want to see some perps frogged marched (the coupsters) before I head off into the Promised Land.
Bin laden wasnt the only figure, without ksm as coordinator they couldnt mount an op on the scale of 9/11.
Farmer: Iran is a relatively weak regional power. It has practically no ability to project military force outside of its borders. It has never been in a position to "take over the entire middle east." Between Turkey, Israel, the Gulf Arab states, and fractured Syria and Iraq, no country is in a position to "take over" the region. What Trump even means by "take over the entire Middle East" is not even clear.
The most significant increase in Iran's ability to operate in the region were the elimination of two of its foes: the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Iran's population — 82 million — is roughly the same as the total of all the countries with which it shares a border, save Turkey. It is weaker than it would have been had that foolish accord remained in place.
It isn't at all clear how the Taliban hindered Iran's ability to operate in the region, and you neglect what might have happened in the region had Saddam remained in power.
You are arguing the downsides of what actually happened versus the presumed upsides of what didn't.
"BTW, what I mean by avoiding 20-20 genius is taking into account only what was knowable at the time in making the decision to invade Iraq, including taking into account all the potential downsides of not doing so."
Despite all the rhetoric and excuse-making and dark (and baseless, hence risible) warnings of mushroom cloud smoking guns, we had no valid basis to invade Iraq. It was not an imminent threat to us. As a signatory to the UN Charter, we may legally attack/invade another country (or even threaten to do so) only when necessary as defense against an imminent or ongoing attack from that country, or if approved by a majority vote of the UN Security Council. Neither condition pertained in 2003, so our invasion was a crime.
. . .so our invasion was a crime.
Two mistakes here. Elementary ones, really.
1) The question isn't whether or not Saddam was going to attack the US, it was whether or not we believed that Saddam was going to attack the US. I refer crazy people to LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTATION, e.g, the joint resolution authorizing the war. But they never do. They prefer to wallow in their ignorance.
2) "Crime" is a meaningless term. In whose eyes? Not ours. The UN never labeled it a crime, and if the UN did label it a crime, who cares?
(sunni) Taliban works with revolutionary guard (shia) ostensibly secular Iraqi intelligence worked with salafi Egyptian jihad, Algerian gia, etc, somewhat akin to soviets and Nazis working together, for a time, in say Poland,
Robert Cook foolishly believes there is international law.
It's a useful fiction but there is no law between nation-states except that to which they choose to submit.
If I ever mean a smart communist, it will truly be a shock.
Hey: Not that it makes any difference, but I appreciate your calling BS on the bullshit BS.
"'Crime' is a meaningless term. In whose eyes? Not ours."
Of course not. We never commit crimes, (even when we do), even when when we invade a country that was no threat to us and topple the government, or when we kill or cause to be killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, when we destroy said nation, causing chaos and misery for its inhabitants, turn millions into homeless refugees fleeing the violence we caused to be unleashed. In the same way that Nixon claimed, "If the President does it, it's not a crime," we believe "If the USA does it, it's not a crime. Of course, Nixon was wrong, and so are we.
"The UN never labeled it a crime...."
Perhaps not institutionally....
If what we did in Iraq is not a crime, then no unprovoked invasion of any nation by any other nation is a crime, then we are uttering cynical political lies when we condemn the violence of Russia or China or North Korea as crimes, then Hussein was within his right as the leader of a sovereign nation to invade Kuwait, then the only law is: might makes right.
"The question isn't whether or not Saddam was going to attack the US, it was whether or not we believed that Saddam was going to attack the US. I refer crazy people to LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTATION, e.g, the joint resolution authorizing the war."
We didn't believe Saddam was going to attack the US. Maybe some credulous nitwits in the Red states bought it, but no one in Washington really believed it (at least, not in the White House). Did you believe it? If so, with all due respect, you were an idiot. At no time did any of the Bush/Cheney bullshit come even close to making a convincing case Saddam was a threat to us or had any intentions (or capacity) to attack us. (Heck, just months before 9/11, both Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell made public, filmed statements stating that Hussein was effectively contained, that sanctions had worked, and he was "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.")
The whole program was a cynical ploy to justify our long-held designs to topple Hussein, our once faithful retainer.
It doesn't make it legal for us to invade a non-threatening country just because both houses vote to do so under our obligations under the UN Charter. (And frankly, even without it, that doesn't make such an act legal. Every nation that invades others does so with the official approval of their government bodies. By this standard, Hitler's invasions of its surrounding countries were legal, and his conquest and total control of Europe would have been legal, had he succeeded.
"It's a useful fiction but there is no law between nation-states except that to which they choose to submit."
By signing the UN Charter, we agreed to submit to its conditions and constraints, and under the Constitution, those conditions and constraints become the law of the land. In other words, it is not (just) international law, but US law.
Except, we really don't ever accept we must abide by the constraints we demand other nations adhere to. In essence, we are a Mafia state, abiding by and respecting no laws except when, and for as long as, it suits us to pretend to.
Robert Cook: and your point about US law vs UN law is?
Robert Cook: I don't believe that "red state" kooks thought Sadaam would attack the US. I don't know all that our Military or IC knew. I do know now that the IC will lie to us at the drop of a hat for purposes of ???? money? Power?
But I also KNOW that once we got to Iraq, SH DID HAVE chemical weapons. My son disarmed some, and much was shipped to Syria. Recall The use under Obama and he drew a "red line" on that.
I am not sure what is under your saddle but you should have it looked at.
Blogger Birkel said...Robert Cook foolishly believes there is international law.
It's a useful fiction but there is no law between nation-states except that to which they choose to submit.4/19/20, 7:41 PM
Current events proved you correct. Philippines went to International Law and successfully won verdict against China on Islands near the Philippines. China just stated it won't submit to the courts ruling. Courts have limited utility without someone willing to force China to submit.
You're correct about "Robert Cook" is meme is consistently on the "Communist" side.
Post a Comment