I too was astounded when Pence said we should bomb Syrian targets. But then again, we actually just did that a few weeks ago. Maybe that was a test, to see the reaction.
How is it possible that US military does not know where the Syrian military airports are located?
What does chemical weapons have to do with the US attacking Syrian military positions?
Perhaps because Saudi Arabia is not in a civil war. I rarely hear how Abraham Lincoln killed 650,000 Americans in our very deadly civil war, but every death in Syria is blamed on Assad.
After just finishing the Jeff Goldberg Atlantic article, I come away with my continued faith in President Obama's foreign policy instincts. His continued pushback against Samantha Power and John Kerry to intervene militarily in Syria is quite enlightening. Russia needs Syria very much, as they do Ukraine. The US needs neither.
I've gone back to Human Rights reports on Syria from before the civil war and have found that Assad was a fairly typical authoritarian. So, I've always been somewhat mystified by the huge anti-Assad movement in the West.
My theory is that the neo-cons always had Syria in its gunsights, that Assad would be taken out soon after Iraq, in 2004 or 2005. But instead Cheney totally lost control of events when the Iraq Sunnis revolted. But then, with the Arab Spring, the neo-cons saw another chance to take out Syria. They realized by then that giving Iraq to Iran wasn't such a great idea.
But why non neo-cons supported the anti-Assad groups was not so clear. Journalists like Dexter Filkins from the New Yorker were so adamantly opposed to Assad. Every death in Syria was blamed on him. It would be like blaming Abraham Lincoln for every death in the American Civil War.
President Obama knows that ISIS has been largely funded by groups from Saudia Arabia, other emirates, Turkey and Israel. These are our so called allies, so he is in a vise.
I thought Steve Croft was high on something, he seemed slightly unhinged during the interview. It's interesting that when President Obama did try to take military action in Syria, it was the conservatives in Congress that would not support the use of air power. Has everyone forgotten that already?
However, one of the 4 Democratic Senators to vote against the deal is Chuck Schumer. He is currently slated to become the next Majority/Minority Leader of the Senate Democrats in 2017, when Harry Reid retires.
I fervently hope that another Senator decides to run to lead the Democrats.
In Obama's defense, he also did the following. He singlehandedly rescued the American auto industry from collapse. He pushed through the stimulus bill that did keep unemployment lower than it would have been. His judicial appointments have been competent. He put into place a major expansion of health care insurance, with an estimated 22 million newly covered Americans after less than two years. He also has changed the face of American health care, with some of the other aspects of Obamacare, including free birth control for women, allowing parents to keep their adult children insured, and changing the rules on pre-existing coverage. He has mostly ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has not got us involved in a new large war. Most of the problems in the Middle East still stem from the Pottery Barn rule used, expressed by Colin Powell to George Bush, that if you break it, you buy it. Obama has tried to push our ally Israel to a more sane policy, but has little support domestically. Obama was effective in putting the Iranian sanctions in place, and has now achieved a major accomplishment with the Iranian nuclear deal.
One thing that we should remember about Obama. No other American president has faced the kind of political pushback like he has experienced the past six years. The Republicans have been savagely fighting his every move, even things like the health care bill, originally a Republican plan.
I always assume that the US government in some capacity is funding things like this all over the world, all of the time. We were doing very similar activities in the 1960's and I have no reason to believe that we ever stopped. This is the cheap way for America to control the world, by controlling and paying for opposition groups in any country we choose. I think Ukraine is a perfect example, we most likely were behind the semi fascist groups that just overthrew the government there. Every once in awhile, a country gets away from us, like Cuba, and Iran. So, then we use other more drastic measures to keep them in their place.
I keep wondering when Russia, Iran, Iraq and Venezuela will join together to limit their oil production and drive crude to a more likeable, for them, amount of around $125 per barrel.
I happen to believe that we should treat Iran with some respect. It is a country of almost 90 million, and is a long, proud civilization that we used to call Persia. It has the right to exist. That point of view never seems to be heard in America. Instead, we are bombarded with the viewpoint of Israel, a small country of 8 million, that has only existed for 60 some years. Or we hear a lot about Saudia Arabia, a tightly held regime with a monarchy, that has about 26 million people. Why shouldn't Iran have a lot of influence in the region?
I am somewhat surprised that a new counterweight to OPEC has not yet emerged. Between them, Russia, Iran, Iraq and Venezuela control 25% of the world oil production. I think that if they worked together, they could act as a counterweight to the Saudi controlled OPEC. When that happened, it would become a priority of both Europe and China to insure that Iran was treated with a bit more respect.
I am fascinated by recent reports that Saudi Arabia might obtain ready made nuclear weapons from Pakistan. I'm also waiting for reaction from the US and Israel about that possibility.
My understanding is that he has diverted a lot of Iranian government resources to the poor and working people. Is that his policy or Khameni's? Also, there has been a lot of outreach to countries like Venezuela, in hopes of minimizing the American superpower status. Is that him or Khameni? Finally, does Professor Cole really believe that Israel cares who is in charge in Iran?
I too was astounded when Pence said we should bomb Syrian targets. But then again, we actually just did that a few weeks ago. Maybe that was a test, to see the reaction.
How is it possible that US military does not know where the Syrian military airports are located?
What does chemical weapons have to do with the US attacking Syrian military positions?
Perhaps because Saudi Arabia is not in a civil war. I rarely hear how Abraham Lincoln killed 650,000 Americans in our very deadly civil war, but every death in Syria is blamed on Assad.
After just finishing the Jeff Goldberg Atlantic article, I come away with my continued faith in President Obama's foreign policy instincts. His continued pushback against Samantha Power and John Kerry to intervene militarily in Syria is quite enlightening. Russia needs Syria very much, as they do Ukraine. The US needs neither.
I've gone back to Human Rights reports on Syria from before the civil war and have found that Assad was a fairly typical authoritarian. So, I've always been somewhat mystified by the huge anti-Assad movement in the West.
My theory is that the neo-cons always had Syria in its gunsights, that Assad would be taken out soon after Iraq, in 2004 or 2005. But instead Cheney totally lost control of events when the Iraq Sunnis revolted. But then, with the Arab Spring, the neo-cons saw another chance to take out Syria. They realized by then that giving Iraq to Iran wasn't such a great idea.
But why non neo-cons supported the anti-Assad groups was not so clear. Journalists like Dexter Filkins from the New Yorker were so adamantly opposed to Assad. Every death in Syria was blamed on him. It would be like blaming Abraham Lincoln for every death in the American Civil War.
The pirate meme gives some structure to what is actually happening. I found this article in the Nation also helpful, in terms of seeing a lot of Isil fighters as pragmatic, rather than ideological.
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
President Obama knows that ISIS has been largely funded by groups from Saudia Arabia, other emirates, Turkey and Israel. These are our so called allies, so he is in a vise.
I thought Steve Croft was high on something, he seemed slightly unhinged during the interview. It's interesting that when President Obama did try to take military action in Syria, it was the conservatives in Congress that would not support the use of air power. Has everyone forgotten that already?
However, one of the 4 Democratic Senators to vote against the deal is Chuck Schumer. He is currently slated to become the next Majority/Minority Leader of the Senate Democrats in 2017, when Harry Reid retires.
I fervently hope that another Senator decides to run to lead the Democrats.
In Obama's defense, he also did the following. He singlehandedly rescued the American auto industry from collapse. He pushed through the stimulus bill that did keep unemployment lower than it would have been. His judicial appointments have been competent. He put into place a major expansion of health care insurance, with an estimated 22 million newly covered Americans after less than two years. He also has changed the face of American health care, with some of the other aspects of Obamacare, including free birth control for women, allowing parents to keep their adult children insured, and changing the rules on pre-existing coverage. He has mostly ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has not got us involved in a new large war. Most of the problems in the Middle East still stem from the Pottery Barn rule used, expressed by Colin Powell to George Bush, that if you break it, you buy it. Obama has tried to push our ally Israel to a more sane policy, but has little support domestically. Obama was effective in putting the Iranian sanctions in place, and has now achieved a major accomplishment with the Iranian nuclear deal.
One thing that we should remember about Obama. No other American president has faced the kind of political pushback like he has experienced the past six years. The Republicans have been savagely fighting his every move, even things like the health care bill, originally a Republican plan.
I always assume that the US government in some capacity is funding things like this all over the world, all of the time. We were doing very similar activities in the 1960's and I have no reason to believe that we ever stopped. This is the cheap way for America to control the world, by controlling and paying for opposition groups in any country we choose. I think Ukraine is a perfect example, we most likely were behind the semi fascist groups that just overthrew the government there. Every once in awhile, a country gets away from us, like Cuba, and Iran. So, then we use other more drastic measures to keep them in their place.
I keep wondering when Russia, Iran, Iraq and Venezuela will join together to limit their oil production and drive crude to a more likeable, for them, amount of around $125 per barrel.
I happen to believe that we should treat Iran with some respect. It is a country of almost 90 million, and is a long, proud civilization that we used to call Persia. It has the right to exist. That point of view never seems to be heard in America. Instead, we are bombarded with the viewpoint of Israel, a small country of 8 million, that has only existed for 60 some years. Or we hear a lot about Saudia Arabia, a tightly held regime with a monarchy, that has about 26 million people. Why shouldn't Iran have a lot of influence in the region?
I am somewhat surprised that a new counterweight to OPEC has not yet emerged. Between them, Russia, Iran, Iraq and Venezuela control 25% of the world oil production. I think that if they worked together, they could act as a counterweight to the Saudi controlled OPEC. When that happened, it would become a priority of both Europe and China to insure that Iran was treated with a bit more respect.
I am fascinated by recent reports that Saudi Arabia might obtain ready made nuclear weapons from Pakistan. I'm also waiting for reaction from the US and Israel about that possibility.
My understanding is that he has diverted a lot of Iranian government resources to the poor and working people. Is that his policy or Khameni's? Also, there has been a lot of outreach to countries like Venezuela, in hopes of minimizing the American superpower status. Is that him or Khameni? Finally, does Professor Cole really believe that Israel cares who is in charge in Iran?