My bet this is a preemptive coup. Given how ISIS' leader was trained and funded by the US and UK intelligence services, it's not hard to question if Washington tormented the crisis in Iraq in order to "stabilize" Iraq by getting rid of Maliki and putting in their own man.
Might be a simple matter of Maliki not wishing to be Yanukovitched. That is, to be turfed out of elected office because all the rich white people outside Iraq never liked him.
I'm sorry, but Putin is reacting to meddling by the EU and the USA inside of the Ukraine if you had cared to pay attention.
What the Maidan merely did is swap out one kleptocrat with another. Has Poroschenko done anything more than double-down all that Turchinov/Yatseniuk have established? No.
If the victims aren't white, the State Department doesn't care and therefore, since the MSM are clearly court stenographers, they will not care either.
Sunnis had their chance to be at the table. They chose not to be. Why should they? They ran the place for decades so why shouldn't that be allowed to continue?
Cantor just lost his primary in VA even after he outspent his Tea Party rival 5-to-1.
Even the last election after Citizens United didn't really work for the elite either. All it did was give a bigger microphone to the crazies the people with money were backing and so people turned against them.
The problem is that the Democrats have sold their souls so completely it's really in no position to capitalize on this.
The belligerency in the West against Russia would be far more pervasive if it wasn't dependent on oil and gas. The EU and the USA would be provoking Russia much, much, much more.
What's needed is a general shift away from capitalism as we know it, which includes getting rid of fossil fuel use, or to at least minimize it.
Corporations do what they do because consumers and voters make it profitable for them.
For me, the people to blame for succession movements isn't outside players and events like Russia and Crimea, but an illustration of how badly elites are failing inside the countries.
After all, there wouldn't be a successionist movement had the national government addressed the underlying concerns of what basically becomes the plurality in one geographic location.
If you treat a whole region like a pariah is it any shock these neglected people turn to look elsewhere for their futures?
It's also strange in the case of the Ukraine that the divisions are also along age lines just as they may have played a factor in the Arab world. The youth of the Ukraine seem to think the EU has the solution to youth unemployment when it's at catastrophic levels just about everywhere but especially Spain and Greece.
What this legal positioning is doing is making middlemen richer. If the rebels don't get subsidized arms from the West, they'll just have to pay a broker more.
If I wasn't such a cynic, I would think American arms manufacturers would PREFER the AIPAC plan failing.
It's interesting that the Syrian military would stoop to risking using these kinds of weapons. I haven't heard any flow of arms being slowed by any sides into the country.
Your forgetting how Obama treated Drake who blew the whistle on illegal NSA practices years ago. Same with Snowden. Out of millions and millions who work in this establishment, so far there's only been a tiny handful to have had the courage to come forward. As the economy tanks even more, expect even that small number to become even smaller as everyone is scrambling to preserve their jobs they have now.
I remember reading one book about the Ottoman Empire and they brought forward the idea that they started to collapse when the railroad and telegraph were introduced. These technologies then allowed a centralized government to rule directly, instead of through distant appointed local leaders.
This whole episode underscores how fraudulent the hysterics were regarding the immediate need to get rid of Morsi.
Also, a piece of paper like this is only as good as the enforcement. Pieces of paper didn't stop South American armed forces from dropping chained dissidents from helicopters over the Pacific Ocean.
It's not as if the Egyptian Army, which birthed Mubarak, is really an institution that can be trusted.
Stalemate ultimately favours no one, really, except those who would benefit from continued chaos.
An immediate question of whether or not those immediately around him who have grown rich and fat would allow him to do anything without first determining just how those decisions could materially impact all those in the regime. Bashar must have figured out by now that he needs them, more than they need him. When thought about this way it puts his brother's car accident in a possible new light.
There is a big difference between the situations but one major commonality as well.
From the public point of view, the intervention in Iraq was never about saving the Iraqis from themselves or others; it was about the collective erection people like Bush, Cheney and the like had. Libya, yes, was a situation where people fear mongered and guilt tripped enough people in NATO countries to go along. We've all seen the claims by the US State Department that intervention was required in Libya because of Qaddaffi's potential to use force. What strikes me is how liberally minded people weren't absolutely horrified when the spokeswoman said that because that set the international bar for the use of violence so low as to allow a cripple to roll over it in a wheelchair.
I think people also seem to ignore the manipulations and deception used to unleash the NATO intervention in Libya was a big contributor to the doubt the world had on the situation in Syria. Simply put, they (those we entrust in positions of power) cried wolf too many times.
The big commonality is the continued domination of positions of authority being occupied by CFR-types like Samantha Power. Ms. Power is remarkably in-line with the thoughts and desires of the previous administration (and the ones before that). People like Obama provide a continuity that the elite requires to maintain their vaunted position and wealth.
Forget about intervention to get the bad leaders out of in far flung parts of the earth. We need to get rid of them back home. As they say, "physician, heal thyself."
For me, any turning away by the Arab masses towards religious parties is actually a rejection of what they see as corruption in Western-style system. I cannot fault them one bit.
After all, they merely have to look at political conditions inside most Western nations and witness disconnected public and massive legalized corruption.
For them, it could simply be a case of "thank, but no thanks".
We'd be so lucky if they were thinking "security at all costs." It's more like "my paycheque at all costs".
The corporate state has reduced us all to wage slaves constantly worrying about our economic futures and so too many people "buy into" the system in order to obtain it.
Why do leaders turn to these foreign escapades? Because the real problems inside their own country are harder to fix than convincing people to bomb brown people and make it appear they are actual leaders with solutions. So, they create a problem they can fix to avoid fixing real ones.
The Saudis have pumped way too much money into the jihadis. Even if Bashar were to step down and a moderate government created, the jihadis would continue the fight. I also think the Saudis don't really control these people that well either. The Syrian coalition would strain and disintegrate and we'd be right back to where we started.
The international community has known for sometime that the Saudis and Qataris have been funding these whackjobs yet turned a blind eye.
I do think all the cards to solve this problem are in Bashar's hands. Unfortunately, there is an entire welfare-like apparatus around him that would probably stab him in the back if he attempted the reforms needed. As much as generals and the like proclaim their love of country, most would be very upset if their jobs were suddenly made redundant.
To me, this coup represented an attack by the largest organization in Egypt against it's only other organized rival and used the pretext of unrest to do it. I don't think people should underestimate the possibility the army does want to radicalize the MB even more to marginalize them. True, they'd be courting another Algeria, but ask yourself what's stopping them? Sense of fair play? Desire for women's and human rights? From an organization that propped up Mubarak for decades?!
I still believe this whole situation is being orchestrated by the Egyptian military in order to sideline the largest (organized) political threat to their continued lifestyles. By playing against the MB and then pandering to their opponents, the military is manipulating the situation.
Egyptians will eventually find their army overlords are not altruistic benefactors at all. This is why I see the army removing Morsi as a VERY bad idea and even Morsi opponents should realize this.
In a just world, this would be investigated and any guilty party would be fired.
However, as Kathleen said, if millions of dead and injured and all the squandered billions cannot provoke an actual investigation, what makes one think that the establishment and the media will demand an investigation into an "ivory tower" academic?
There is one huge detail that should be mentioned. The burning of Washington DC was done in response to the American burning and looting of York (now Toronto). It was a tit-for-tat reaction.
One *can* argue that 911 was a response to American policy crimes abroad. That if reining death from the skies by Americans upon the Islamic world is okay, then turnabout is fair play. That Moslem warriors can rein death upon Americans from the skies. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This is not a game we should be playing. Makes me wonder if there are actually any adults in charge.
Forgive me, but when people like the UAE, which have helped fund Syrian islamists claim they are bombing the "bad" Islamists, I just don't buy it.
My bet this is a preemptive coup. Given how ISIS' leader was trained and funded by the US and UK intelligence services, it's not hard to question if Washington tormented the crisis in Iraq in order to "stabilize" Iraq by getting rid of Maliki and putting in their own man.
Might be a simple matter of Maliki not wishing to be Yanukovitched. That is, to be turfed out of elected office because all the rich white people outside Iraq never liked him.
RT journalists resign, which shows that at least RT hires people with some ethics and backbone.
The rest of the MSM, not so much.
I'm sorry, but Putin is reacting to meddling by the EU and the USA inside of the Ukraine if you had cared to pay attention.
What the Maidan merely did is swap out one kleptocrat with another. Has Poroschenko done anything more than double-down all that Turchinov/Yatseniuk have established? No.
If the victims aren't white, the State Department doesn't care and therefore, since the MSM are clearly court stenographers, they will not care either.
Sunnis had their chance to be at the table. They chose not to be. Why should they? They ran the place for decades so why shouldn't that be allowed to continue?
Don't be so glum, actually.
Cantor just lost his primary in VA even after he outspent his Tea Party rival 5-to-1.
Even the last election after Citizens United didn't really work for the elite either. All it did was give a bigger microphone to the crazies the people with money were backing and so people turned against them.
The problem is that the Democrats have sold their souls so completely it's really in no position to capitalize on this.
The belligerency in the West against Russia would be far more pervasive if it wasn't dependent on oil and gas. The EU and the USA would be provoking Russia much, much, much more.
What's needed is a general shift away from capitalism as we know it, which includes getting rid of fossil fuel use, or to at least minimize it.
Corporations do what they do because consumers and voters make it profitable for them.
Wow, I really thought I was reading The Onion for a while.
Some is better than none, but I'm sure Google cleared this with the NSA first. Besides, the NSA obviously has ways around encryption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulg_AHBOIQU
I avoid all Google products already anyways.
For me, the people to blame for succession movements isn't outside players and events like Russia and Crimea, but an illustration of how badly elites are failing inside the countries.
After all, there wouldn't be a successionist movement had the national government addressed the underlying concerns of what basically becomes the plurality in one geographic location.
If you treat a whole region like a pariah is it any shock these neglected people turn to look elsewhere for their futures?
Well, if they don't like Russia, then they get stay in Ukraine and get beaten up by Yarosh's and Svoboda goons.
Russia did not annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
It's also strange in the case of the Ukraine that the divisions are also along age lines just as they may have played a factor in the Arab world. The youth of the Ukraine seem to think the EU has the solution to youth unemployment when it's at catastrophic levels just about everywhere but especially Spain and Greece.
Where are the calls for sanctions as we've seen from the US and EU when it comes to the Ukraine?
What this legal positioning is doing is making middlemen richer. If the rebels don't get subsidized arms from the West, they'll just have to pay a broker more.
If I wasn't such a cynic, I would think American arms manufacturers would PREFER the AIPAC plan failing.
It's interesting that the Syrian military would stoop to risking using these kinds of weapons. I haven't heard any flow of arms being slowed by any sides into the country.
Your forgetting how Obama treated Drake who blew the whistle on illegal NSA practices years ago. Same with Snowden. Out of millions and millions who work in this establishment, so far there's only been a tiny handful to have had the courage to come forward. As the economy tanks even more, expect even that small number to become even smaller as everyone is scrambling to preserve their jobs they have now.
I remember reading one book about the Ottoman Empire and they brought forward the idea that they started to collapse when the railroad and telegraph were introduced. These technologies then allowed a centralized government to rule directly, instead of through distant appointed local leaders.
I'd buy that for a dollar.
This whole episode underscores how fraudulent the hysterics were regarding the immediate need to get rid of Morsi.
Also, a piece of paper like this is only as good as the enforcement. Pieces of paper didn't stop South American armed forces from dropping chained dissidents from helicopters over the Pacific Ocean.
It's not as if the Egyptian Army, which birthed Mubarak, is really an institution that can be trusted.
Wow, this Pope really is goading the Church to poison him, isn't he?
Stalemate ultimately favours no one, really, except those who would benefit from continued chaos.
An immediate question of whether or not those immediately around him who have grown rich and fat would allow him to do anything without first determining just how those decisions could materially impact all those in the regime. Bashar must have figured out by now that he needs them, more than they need him. When thought about this way it puts his brother's car accident in a possible new light.
There is a big difference between the situations but one major commonality as well.
From the public point of view, the intervention in Iraq was never about saving the Iraqis from themselves or others; it was about the collective erection people like Bush, Cheney and the like had. Libya, yes, was a situation where people fear mongered and guilt tripped enough people in NATO countries to go along. We've all seen the claims by the US State Department that intervention was required in Libya because of Qaddaffi's potential to use force. What strikes me is how liberally minded people weren't absolutely horrified when the spokeswoman said that because that set the international bar for the use of violence so low as to allow a cripple to roll over it in a wheelchair.
I think people also seem to ignore the manipulations and deception used to unleash the NATO intervention in Libya was a big contributor to the doubt the world had on the situation in Syria. Simply put, they (those we entrust in positions of power) cried wolf too many times.
The big commonality is the continued domination of positions of authority being occupied by CFR-types like Samantha Power. Ms. Power is remarkably in-line with the thoughts and desires of the previous administration (and the ones before that). People like Obama provide a continuity that the elite requires to maintain their vaunted position and wealth.
Forget about intervention to get the bad leaders out of in far flung parts of the earth. We need to get rid of them back home. As they say, "physician, heal thyself."
For me, any turning away by the Arab masses towards religious parties is actually a rejection of what they see as corruption in Western-style system. I cannot fault them one bit.
After all, they merely have to look at political conditions inside most Western nations and witness disconnected public and massive legalized corruption.
For them, it could simply be a case of "thank, but no thanks".
Indeed. Geography and climate directly impact history. After all, it is said that any civilization is merely six meals away from anarchy.
What can possibly go wrong when we picks sides and determine the outcome of internal national politics of another?
No bad has ever come when Western powers treated the residents of far away lands like children...
We'd be so lucky if they were thinking "security at all costs." It's more like "my paycheque at all costs".
The corporate state has reduced us all to wage slaves constantly worrying about our economic futures and so too many people "buy into" the system in order to obtain it.
They are pod people now. It's weird hearing the arguments from General Westmorland being trotted out by John Kerry.
Why do leaders turn to these foreign escapades? Because the real problems inside their own country are harder to fix than convincing people to bomb brown people and make it appear they are actual leaders with solutions. So, they create a problem they can fix to avoid fixing real ones.
The world to the USA: once bitten, twice shy.
The Saudis have pumped way too much money into the jihadis. Even if Bashar were to step down and a moderate government created, the jihadis would continue the fight. I also think the Saudis don't really control these people that well either. The Syrian coalition would strain and disintegrate and we'd be right back to where we started.
The international community has known for sometime that the Saudis and Qataris have been funding these whackjobs yet turned a blind eye.
I do think all the cards to solve this problem are in Bashar's hands. Unfortunately, there is an entire welfare-like apparatus around him that would probably stab him in the back if he attempted the reforms needed. As much as generals and the like proclaim their love of country, most would be very upset if their jobs were suddenly made redundant.
Knocked right out of the park. Sending this to everyone I know that thinks banning the Muslim Brotherhood is a necessary idea.
To me, this coup represented an attack by the largest organization in Egypt against it's only other organized rival and used the pretext of unrest to do it. I don't think people should underestimate the possibility the army does want to radicalize the MB even more to marginalize them. True, they'd be courting another Algeria, but ask yourself what's stopping them? Sense of fair play? Desire for women's and human rights? From an organization that propped up Mubarak for decades?!
I still believe this whole situation is being orchestrated by the Egyptian military in order to sideline the largest (organized) political threat to their continued lifestyles. By playing against the MB and then pandering to their opponents, the military is manipulating the situation.
Egyptians will eventually find their army overlords are not altruistic benefactors at all. This is why I see the army removing Morsi as a VERY bad idea and even Morsi opponents should realize this.
The order of these interventions should not be forgotten.
(Should be FOUL not FOWL).
In a just world, this would be investigated and any guilty party would be fired.
However, as Kathleen said, if millions of dead and injured and all the squandered billions cannot provoke an actual investigation, what makes one think that the establishment and the media will demand an investigation into an "ivory tower" academic?
There is one huge detail that should be mentioned. The burning of Washington DC was done in response to the American burning and looting of York (now Toronto). It was a tit-for-tat reaction.
One *can* argue that 911 was a response to American policy crimes abroad. That if reining death from the skies by Americans upon the Islamic world is okay, then turnabout is fair play. That Moslem warriors can rein death upon Americans from the skies. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This is not a game we should be playing. Makes me wonder if there are actually any adults in charge.