the nutcases in larouche  rodents nest need to feel relevant!

All my friends are have civil rights background and are actively in the movement working for people of color and minorities. I suggest you examine Larouche and anti semite, anti immigrant  history. Eight attempts at the presidency and all that he has for that is the label nutcase.

Mr Grand Dragon, I give you credit for one thing: amazing consistency. I have yet to see a post of yours that was not both incoherent and wrong.

As I advised the reverend on another thread it is easy to rattle off mindless descriptions but you seem to be more prone to it than he does. Larouche is what he is, a conspiracy theorist...forget the supposedly Straussian devils in the white house of the bush era or the queen being a drug dealer?

 

Well, you folks are quite prolific with these supposed secret societies taking over the world. In this case, one does not have to look farther than a brutal man in  Syria. I wonder if his british education and wife drove him to be cruel to his people! Maybe I should defer to Mr Larouche

I'm not here to defend Assad. I'm here to question whether your policy of "perpetual regime change by military intervention" is really in the interests of the people who live in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, etc. I am hard pressed to identify anyone who has benefited from it. I also wonder why gross human rights violators like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar are seemingly exempt from criticism.

I do not know what the hell you are speaking of as my policy of regime change. Further, the idea that if or when those changes occur  it is mere caprice of some malevolent entity is re rewriting the bible! Satan does well as the agency of evil for most of us. Hanging that title on the Brits is silly.

 

Secondly, the idea that regime change across the world is set into  motion by some agency and directed by some sentient conspiratorial corporate mind is also baloney.

 

It is what all humans everywhere has always done organically because we are inherently program to  build up and break down as part of our eternal hardwired project for cultural growth. On its primal level it is what the universe does.

The regime changes I refer to are caused by military invasions by the US. That's not terribly complicated, although it may seem so to your addled pate. And every time a new such invasion is proposed, you enthusiastically support it, hence I refer to it as your policy.

There goes your "clanging reality" again.

The US invasion of Afghanistan I wholly support. I did not support the invasion of Iraq even though I believe it would have been eventually necessary.  Indeed there is nothing complicated there. War is the collapse of semantics and facts to the emotional requiring the removal of an advisory. It is what we do to protect our interest. It is why our soldiers stand on the wall and why I would stand with them.

 

D2 wrote nothing here. Stormborn is writing and I am responding to Henry. I do not care if behind the name you are called Jill and wear a skirt. Henry is the persona I address so you let the dead bury the dead. Stormborn is here today.

 

I do not know why the obvious human compulsions for war is a "clanging". I suggest you take your meds or seek after a good physician if you are hearing noises. From time immemorial we have fought each other and will continue to do so until we are all no longer here. Our great religious texts are texts about wars and winning peace according to moral terms of the believers in the faith.

 

I know of no peaceful culture. All are forged in the crucible of wars. If you want to speak of just wars...get out your Augustine or Aquinas and lets talk. Don't tell me crap about "we are always about regime change". If the right arm offend thee, cut it off. That has always been the exhortations of the tribes and clans from time immemorial.

 

Every damn one of those evil regimes demanded to be changed by any means necessary. As much as you may want to give the Brits or the US credit for the Arab spring it was home grown. The people did in a year what Islamist ( in the sense of religious fundamentalist freaks) were trying to do for decades.

 

Now these militants are themselves on the decline in places. You give the bumbling war planners in 4th estate nations too much credit for nothing. If it was as easy as you say and can discern the plan then you are in possession of some useful tools.

 

Share them with me for I would  want to deploy it again the PPP because they are an abomination. Imagine that, no more fussing. Just put the seeds of the revolution in the head of a fruit vendor and watch Ramator and his clan run to China for sanctuary!

Regime change is a necessary ploy to keep the West and Israel on top, and the mideast destabilized. It's called code name "Arab spring". Look at Egypt today. Forget Palestine.

Great point. Speak out like Norman Finkelstein, and get ostracized.

 

So, are you planning to enlist in the US military, to protect America from the ever-present threat coming from Third World nations? Perhaps you imagine that if Obama is elected to a second term, he will devastate Guyana with drone attacks, as a prelude to installing Freddie Kissoon as a puppet dictator.

Were they at the bottom? TO say the US benefits from what emerging in Egypt or that Israel is fine with the instability is pure bilge. Give the man in the street some credit for good sense to remove those that oppressed them. Do a dua for him so he may be given the foresight to make a new life unfettered by dictatorships.

Knucklehead, I am not responsible for your poor exposure to scholarship as to the causes of conflict of any kind and that war is the ultimate arbiter  of disagreements. At its basic level,  the understanding that two people or two groups disagree  requires some procedural steps in order to clarify the status of the dispute. Those steps are the same in the  understanding of anything.  I referenced this  in the sentence above; the very baby steps to knowledge that you in your ignorance, failed to comprehend. Let me clarify.

 

First  you have to make sure they know what they are fighting about as surprising as that may see. That requires clarification of the language so one is assured that both are speaking to the same things and what one means the other understands to be the case. If that is where the differences lie, ie misunderstanding then the matter is resolved, they shake hands and go home.That is resolution based on clarifying the semantics of their disagreements.

 

Secondly, if the language is clear and the disagreement persists then one has to examine and clarify the facts as they are known.  Facts are not truths but the building blocks of truths. Truths are statements about facts  which are on some level given an existential context because of mutually agreed upon systems of examinations.

 

Now if the semantics are clarified and the facts are understood but the parties still disagree what the hell is left for them to do? They wring their hands evaluate their tactical strength or simply go at each other because by then nothing can resolve the matter, it is now an emotional entanglement. Only the capitulation of one or the other or intervention of an external authority can resolve this. That is what I meant by the statement you so stupidly cast aside.

 

America stands for something. It stands for that view that plurality of opinions matter and agreements can be forged by mutual compromise. It is unique on this matter. Elsewhere, decisions by  diktat is the rule of the day.  Yes, I would stand on the wall for that. Actually, it is America standing on the wall that allows your stupid behind to have the ability to broadcast your ignorance conspiracy theories on such grand scale. In China, for example, they would have your ass on the rack. Elsewhere they may have your head. In a sense, I would be standing on the wall so your stupid behind to have the right to be a blockhead.

 

I do not imagine Obama having a second term. I plan to do all I can ( which is not much) to see that he does.

They are scraping the bottom in their effort to prop up Israel. A powerful Mideast force is a threat so they need to be destabilized like Iraq, reduced from a powerful force to ruins. It has nothing to do with dictatorships. The US has installed and propped up more dictators than any other country in the world. They care little for foreign people and foreign people care little for them. The world is littered with signs, "Yankee go home".

About Obama. I voted for him, and he has done absolutely nothing he promised. I now pay $1,100 a month for healthcare premiums, money that could have been better spent in travel or investments. He is a showman like Reagan but cannot live up to his promises. After Obama, I will bet my bottom dollar that there will never be another black president in this country.

 There can be no "powerful ME threat" in the conventional sense than can stop Israel. The failure of the Arab world to use their influence and economic strength to lobby for changes that would address what I agree with you is an Israeli land grab is cultural. They are all cruel dictators who have no sea legs to make a moral argument. There are no Gandhis or Dr Kings in the Arab world to date because no one has made their kinds of moral arguments that captures the imagination of the world.

 

Saddam was a disgusting, cruel and obstinate man who simply felt he can murder his own at will. He destabilized his position as a tyrant one let exist because he threatened the stability of nations outside his zone. Had he not fought Iran for a decade, systematically oppressed the Kurds, Shia, wage genocidal war on tribal Arabs no one would give a damn about him. He lived and died by his own hands. You would not care about quarrelsome neighbors unless their quarrels extend to breaking your windows then you do what is within your power to have one or the other or both gone.

I pay 740 directly from my own pocket and I do not blame Obama. He did the best he could and on his watch 50 million more gets health care than before. I do not like the Health Care bill on account it did not regulate the pharmaceuticals or insurance companies and the mandate is problematic in that context. I would not mind it if there were some reins on the gougers in the pharmaceuticals or hospitals. Any doctor that bills 250K for an appendectomy should be in jail for theft.

If the object was to kill Saddam, it could have been accomplished in seconds with a cruise, with no effect on the citizenry or economy. The real objective was to secure the oilfields.

They tried many times to kill him.

 

If securing the oil fields was the case they would not spend a trillion dollars there and many lives lost to turn it over to the new rulers? They themselves do not seem to have learned.

 

The Kurds may be the only one coming out of this with any degree of success.

I always disagree with Storm but he is right on this one.

The so-called "Arab Spring" is really just the local version of a general political upheaval that exists throughout much of the world. It includes both the "Tea Party" and "Occupy Wall Street" phenomena in the US, as well as the "Indignatos" throughout Europe. As the global financial system descends deeper into bankruptcy, the imperial bureaucracies such as the IMF demand that living standards be driven down in order to divert more funds into bank bailouts. The resulting denial of food, shelter and medical care causes social unrest, which takes a variety of local forms.

I have severe reservations about those "trillions". The bulk of it poured back into the US through US contractors. What I am concerned about is what is happening to Iraq oil revenues, and who is benefitting from it.

I think that this is the key to understanding the invasion of Iraq. Unlike other Arab states with oil, Iraq under Saddam was investing the oil revenues into infrastructure and science projects. The new regime will not do this. Consequently, it doesn't matter whether it is technically an independent state. Economically, Iraq will remain utterly dependent upon the Anglo-American interests. British policy is to keep the region unstable and backward, and their only interest in Israel is to keep it as a constant irritant to other states in the region, to ensure that oil-rich states never get their act together to become self-sufficient and actually sovereign.

Very good summation. That says it all.