What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

The W administration used a bloodthirsty post 9/11 nation with 60+% approval rating in 2002-03 and was intelligently evil in convincing the nation and allies to hit Iraq. Trump can't stay on target for more than a day, is mired between 38-44% and has alienated everyone outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their suggestion of 120k troops is probably only 20% of what would actually be needed and would have an outcome closer to Vietnam than Iraq.
 
bronconick said:
The W administration used a bloodthirsty post 9/11 nation with 60+% approval rating in 2002-03 and was intelligently evil in convincing the nation and allies to hit Iraq. Trump can't stay on target for more than a day, is mired between 38-44% and has alienated everyone outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their suggestion of 120k troops is probably only 20% of what would actually be needed and would have an outcome closer to Vietnam than Iraq.
Click to expand...

Post 9/11 Patriot Act was/is awful and the Iraq war was a gonad inspired revenge killing. In this 43 was Sonny, when he needed to be Michael.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

bronconick said:
The W administration used a bloodthirsty post 9/11 nation with 60+% approval rating in 2002-03 and was intelligently evil in convincing the nation and allies to hit Iraq. Trump can't stay on target for more than a day, is mired between 38-44% and has alienated everyone outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their suggestion of 120k troops is probably only 20% of what would actually be needed and would have an outcome closer to Vietnam than Iraq.
Click to expand...

Easy. He's a condo salesman who has always operated with lies and his father's money. He is performing to his maximum capability.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

So this sh** is really happening, eh?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/StateDept?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@StateDept</a> has ordered the departure of non-emergency USG employees from Iraq, both at the Embassy in Baghdad and Consulate in Erbil. Additional information on this alert can be found on the U.S. Embassy website at U.S. Citizen Services. <a href="https://t.co/iX96dAkyhT">https://t.co/iX96dAkyhT</a></p>— U.S. Embassy Baghdad (@USEmbBaghdad) <a href="https://twitter.com/USEmbBaghdad/status/1128576814790606849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Seems a little soon to blow his load like this before the 2020 election...
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

This is such an extraordinarily bad idea. Congress has to authorize the war, right? They’ve never given permission to enter Iran. Does the “whatever stupid name for the GWOT authorization act” give dip-hit the latitude to do this?
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

solovsfett said:
Yes, but Caitlin Johnstone is not agitprop imo. I’ve been reading her stuff for several years and have not detected disinformation.

Now, I could be wrong and she is Kim Philby part 2, but that’s Not an impression i’ve Gotten from reading her stuff which is almost exclusively anti-war, anti-empire/hegemony etc
Click to expand...

I've been generally heartbroken in the last decade plus how easily my fellow anti-war, anti-imperialists have been played by RT et al. I have never understood how people who are smart and hard-headed and cynical enough to understand the USG operates as an imperialist hegemon can also be so gullible when falling for other states' propaganda and self-interested narratives.

They completely get that the US, Israel, and the Saudis are sociopathic liars but they miss that Russia, China, and Iran are... sociopathic liars.

It's like House said: everybody lies. International relations is a libertarian paradise: an anarchic marketplace where everything is for sale including historical truths, present facts, and future motives.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
This is such an extraordinarily bad idea. Congress has to authorize the war, right? They’ve never given permission to enter Iran. Does the “whatever stupid name for the GWOT authorization act” give dip-hit the latitude to do this?
Click to expand...

We’ve recently decided the constitution is worthless. 10 out of 10 republicans agree
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

One anonymous source says it was Iran: https://t.co/1lTOkcqFlI

Again, how convenient. But is it logical? Do we really think Iran wants 150,000 US troop invasion, drone strikes and occupation forever?

At some point I would think the world would have enough of us pushing war in every country with resources we want or alternately to continue sales of weapons etc.
 
Kepler said:
I've been generally heartbroken in the last decade plus how easily my fellow anti-war, anti-imperialists have been played by RT et al. I have never understood how people who are smart and hard-headed and cynical enough to understand the USG operates as an imperialist hegemon can also be so gullible when falling for other states' propaganda and self-interested narratives.

They completely get that the US, Israel, and the Saudis are sociopathic liars but they miss that Russia, China, and Iran are... sociopathic liars.

It's like House said: everybody lies. International relations is a libertarian paradise: an anarchic marketplace where everything is for sale including historical truths, present facts, and future motives.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you however I don’t feel Caitlin Johnstone or Lee Camp are foreign agents or purveyors of disinformation etc.

Are Russia and China bad actors? Yes, of course but T some point we have to control what we can control which is our behavior on the world stage.

To coin a 90’s phrase, it’s bad optics to push for war in Iran when the history is the cia already destroyed them by taking out mossadegh. It’s bad optics to goad N Korea into war or whatever Bolty wants after we fought them 60 years ago and used bio weapons and killed over 1 million people.
It’s Bad optics to push for yet another Coup in Central or South America where the cia has destroyed El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela.

We have no moral high ground. And that goes all the way back to Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles writing the Treaty of Versailles. At least that far back.

But yes, we’re not the only liars and purveyors of disinformation and propaganda.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

solovsfett said:
I don’t feel Caitlin Johnstone or Lee Camp are foreign agents or purveyors of disinformation etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are witting. I think they're like the American socialists in the 50s and 60s who apologized for Russia and defended the show trials and the purges. They knew full well that people like McCarthy and Nixon who demonized all socialists were bad actors but they made the logical fallacy that anything a liar calls bad must be good. The whole point of a machine like a McCarthy or Nixon, or for that matter a Dump, is their words have no connection with reality. That doesn't mean their assertion x has to be False. It means the fact of their assertion implies no information at all about x. It's less that they lie than they emit nonsense.
 
Kepler said:
I don't think they are witting. I think they're like the American socialists in the 50s and 60s who apologized for Russia and defended the show trials and the purges. They knew full well that people like McCarthy and Nixon who demonized all socialists were bad actors but they made the logical fallacy that anything a liar calls bad must be good. The whole point of a machine like a McCarthy or Nixon, or for that matter a Dump, is their words have no connection with reality. That doesn't mean their assertion x has to be False. It means the fact of their assertion implies no information at all about x. It's less that they lie than they emit nonsense.
Click to expand...

All of that is true however does not apply to Johnstone, Camp or outlets like Consortium or Mintpress. None of them apologize for the bad actors. They focus on American hegemony and imperialism because: no-one including daily beast, Chomsky, Goodman huff post et al are calling our government out for their malfeasance. They’re gatekeepers and the investigative reporters like Camp, Johnstone or Webb, Hastings, Kilgallen, Casolaro must report in tiny journals because corporate money will never support journalists who call them out for attempting to wage war which clears the way for Bayer/Monsanto to overturn chavez’ law against bayer’s Plans and control venezuelas oil output etc. then they have the further indignity of being ripped for not being part of msm or insert x’s trusted new site here.

At least that’s my view.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

solovsfett said:
All of that is true however does not apply to Johnstone, Camp or outlets like Consortium or Mintpress. None of them apologize for the bad actors. They focus on American hegemony and imperialism because: no-one including daily beast, Chomsky, Goodman huff post et al are calling our government out for their malfeasance. They’re gatekeepers and the investigative reporters like Camp, Johnstone or Webb, Hastings, Kilgallen, Casolaro must report in tiny journals because corporate money will never support journalists who call them out for attempting to wage war which clears the way for Bayer/Monsanto to overturn chavez’ law against bayer’s Plans and control venezuelas oil output etc. then they have the further indignity of being ripped for not being part of msm or insert x’s trusted new site here.

At least that’s my view.
Click to expand...

I agree that investigative journalists are great people doing the lord's work. I don't know about these particular cases. I hope they are as diligent vetting sources and as cynical about all governments as about ours.

I am never surprised to find that the USG may be lying about an enemy's or rival's actions. That's how you manufacture consent in a "democracy." Now combine that with Bolton and his crowd, who are deranged, and Dump and his crowd, who are criminals, and frankly nothing would surprise me.
 
Kepler said:
I agree that investigative journalists are great people doing the lord's work. I don't know about these particular cases. I hope they are as diligent vetting sources and as cynical about all governments as about ours.

I am never surprised to find that the USG may be lying about an enemy's or rival's actions. That's how you manufacture consent in a "democracy." Now combine that with Bolton and his crowd, who are deranged, and Dump and his crowd, who are criminals, and frankly nothing would surprise me.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% on vetting sources and well more than agree as well on manufacturing consent in the US today, esp with Bolton, Abrams et al.

With regard to specifics on investigative reporters: Camp and Johnstone are more editorialists commenting on news articles and document release though Camp does conduct interviews with historians etc.

The rest; Danny Casolaro, Michael Hastings, Dorothy Kilgallen, Gary Webb and people like Robert Parry (consortium news and others) and Gaeton Fonzi (nbc news, 60 minutes, Philadelphia inquirer, 2 senate investigations) really led the way on true unbiased investigative journalism. The first 4 died under unusual circumstances although Webb may likely was suicide (despite two gunshots to the head).

I may come across sometimes as too harsh on the U.S. I guess 2-3 years ago Trump’s tweet about releasing files then reneging under pressure and breaking the law in so doing along with watching Wormwood awoke my curiosity on what people call the deep state. I have about 30 books down and 45 to go. Then I read about Henry Ford building engines for nazi trucks and tanks getting away with treason (along with dozens and dozens of others) and then suing the gov’t for bombing his facilities in Germany and winning! That kick started my history kick for sure.

I love the country but not the Power Elite. I wish we had 100,000 Ed Exley types in government and LE.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fire from Bob Menendez when he asks Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Andrea Thompson about Russian nuclear plans without New START.<br><br>Thompson: "It's a good question for Russia, senator."<br>...<br>Menendez: "I’m not asking Russia about our national defense. I'm asking you." <a href="https://t.co/v3i0VXMhIr">pic.twitter.com/v3i0VXMhIr</a></p>— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1128745739331559425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

aparch said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Fire from Bob Menendez when he asks Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Andrea Thompson about Russian nuclear plans without New START.<br><br>Thompson: "It's a good question for Russia, senator."<br>...<br>Menendez: "I’m not asking Russia about our national defense. I'm asking you." <a href="https://t.co/v3i0VXMhIr">pic.twitter.com/v3i0VXMhIr</a></p>— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) <a href="https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1128745739331559425?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, this administration's staff are idiots.

This flippancy, this seeming lack of concern in regard to potential outcomes of policy, the unconcern in future-planning out the repercussions of that policy, the lack of foresight about what those repercussions are, or what courses of action our enemies may be contemplating in the future, that doesn't bother any of the "not a Trump supporter, but" members of this board?

It's certainly fair to say that you were warned that this sort of thing was going to happen. That you blissfully waved it off, since our "institutions will protect us". well, this is what happens when you elect amateurs to run government, people who don't believe in government, people who don't believe career government workers have much-needed skills and experience in dealing with matters such as this. What happens when you eliminate competency as a requirement of your political candidates.

But no, I'm just being hysterical.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy 2.0: Have you read Kipling, Mr. Tillerson?

Thompson is a protege of Flynn and a favorite of Pence. She has degrees from the University of South Dakota and LIU. No word on whether she was capable of getting into Trump University. Her highest educational attainment, National Defense University, is the same DOD summer camp Dr. Mrs. did in her spare time on a lark when she worked full time on the Hill.

In other words, Thompson's a joke, but she's cute (which counts a lot with this administration) and she's ideologically compliant for RW silliness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top