en-us http://www.intensedebate.com/users/558275 Comments by jeff_davis http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/02/14/the-pentagons-lie-machine/#IDComment293235191 We had "honest" reporting -- in the WW2 model -- in Vietnam, and it was a catastrophe for the govt and their agenda. Not because it changed the outcome, but because the truth savagely discredited the executive elite, the military, and the nation. In Iraq and Afghanistan once again the US(elite) has suffered near comprehensive failure to achieve its(elite) goals. However -- and here's the point -- the new propaganda program has largely (not EVERYONE hoodwinked) succeeded in preventing the American people from realizing what has happened. To the hoodwinked, the military is magnificent, Iraq and Afghanistan have been freed, Osama is dead and al Qaeda is crushed (mostly). And whatever problems the US might still have with Afghanistan, well,...that's clearly someone else's fault: Afghan's are primitive, uncooperative, and incompetent; Pakistan is unreliable and treacherous; and of course evil Iran is right next door and everyone knows what that means (hint: It's their fault, must be.) And so we have achieved a marvelous new paradigm: the Washington elite and our brave warriors always win and never lose. When they kinda sorta "lose", they rebrand it as a win, and keep right on marching, fully funded and bathed in everlasting glory. Mission accomplished. (Except for that damned internet! Something will have to be done about that.) Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:49:05 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/02/14/the-pentagons-lie-machine/#IDComment293235191 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/13/new-militia-federation-announced-in-western-libya/#IDComment292440599 Having countries that suck up to the Imperium is best case. But helpless basket-cases which sell their resources to the Imperium for cheap are perfectly satisfactory. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:45:04 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/13/new-militia-federation-announced-in-western-libya/#IDComment292440599 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/13/un-slams-planned-kosovo-referendum-germany-warns-of-attacks-on-serbs/#IDComment292365419 If the consent of the governed is such a foundational democratic "commandment", then indeed what was good and right for Kosovo's Muslims (so-called "Albanians") should be good and right for Kosovo's Serbs. Unfortunately, the power of the state is being challenged here, and where power is involved, the state doesn't bother about good and right. That said, the rise of democratic values inevitably leads to a conflict between state power and people power. The world -- Africa and the Mideast in particular -- is chock full of nation states whose borders were drawn according to the extent of imperial conquest. Local tribal/ethnic boundaries were no more respected than were the "inalienable rights" of those being conquered. Post conquest, it became useful to have different, usually contentious, local tribes cobbled together into one "nation", as their fractiousness made imperial domination easier than against an homogenous unified opposition. If the principle of self-determination was actually respected, then secession by plebiscite would be common, and the result would be many many small nations. In the US for example, the South, Midwest, Rocky mountain states, and the East and West coasts would all be separate nations. In the Mideast, Shia and Sunni regions would separate, as would Kurds, Persians, Balochs, Pashtuns, Punjabis, and no doubt a long list of others. But the privileges of the ruling class would everywhere be reconfigured, so better to keep the undemocratic unrepresentative state power you have, than submit to the uncertainty of people power and self-determination. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:50:53 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/13/un-slams-planned-kosovo-referendum-germany-warns-of-attacks-on-serbs/#IDComment292365419 http://original.antiwar.com/isenberg/2012/02/13/israeli-attack-on-iran-easier-said-than-done/#IDComment292324632 "Although U.S. troops are no longer there, traversing Iraqi airspace would not be possible without the knowledge, and most likely the permission, of the United States." Of course, no mention of Iraqi permission. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:47:57 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/isenberg/2012/02/13/israeli-attack-on-iran-easier-said-than-done/#IDComment292324632 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/11/us-iraqi-officials-al-qaeda-behind-syria-bombing-arming-opposition/#IDComment290855965 "And that's the truth and from a reliable source " What have you been smokin? Syria is naturally fractious. Arab, tribal,and with an authoritarian govt set up many years back by a coup. At the time the world accepted that as legitimate because it suited them and, in truth, because it's entirely in character with the rest of the world govts, which are hardly any more "legitimate", silly-ass claims of democracy notwithstanding (the ruling elite buying politicians by buying elections by bribing the corruptible or hoodwinking the weak-minded). Get over it. So here's the truth: The fall of the Soviet Union emboldened the neocons (militant Zionists all) to push the US into conquering the Mideast, for neocon political ascendancy, for Republican dreams of one party rule (the Republican version of the Thousand-Year Reich), for Pentagon glory(and perks, don't forget the perks), for MIC profits, for oil, for the Bankers, but mostly,...mostly,... for Israel (the neocons are right-wing Likudniks. All Israel all the time.). So the always simmering, long suppressed political opposition in Syria gets some covert funding from the CIA and some provocative encouragement and training from the ever-present Mossad (probably posing as CIA),...and Voila! Righteous Rebellion. "Peaceful protesters" flooding the streets, clamoring for their democratic rights. The Syrian govt does as expected -- not to mention, as justified -- by a revolt fueled by foreign subversion, and then we hear the shrieking "massacre!! massacre!!" "Save us. Save us please. Give us a no fly zone, please, we're being killed by the gazillions!!!" Sound familiar? US and Israeli opportunism, and along script lines crassly familiar. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:35:32 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/11/us-iraqi-officials-al-qaeda-behind-syria-bombing-arming-opposition/#IDComment290855965 http://original.antiwar.com/travis-kelly/2012/02/10/buck-fever-crosshairs-on-iran/#IDComment290766548 Humanist, I applaud your ambition. Clearly you want to engage in the conversation regarding the human condition that all adults have with all other adults. Commendable. However, you're not yet equipped with the tools of effective analysis and commentary. Chimps and humans both have a neocortex. In fact, the "chimp brain" as you call it is virtually indistinguishable, save for size, from the human brain. It does NOT have an "additional layer". Then there is the comment about "backward countries". This terminology is not that of a mature adult. I do not want to be in-courteous to you, or discourage you from continuing to grow and learn and participate in the human adventure. But for now, remember to keep reading and studying and thinking. It's the only chance you have of securing a decent future for yourself, and perhaps help to change the world for the better. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:07:26 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/travis-kelly/2012/02/10/buck-fever-crosshairs-on-iran/#IDComment290766548 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/11/iran-to-unveil-big-new-in-the-nuclear-field/#IDComment290752089 Getting emotionally involved in the rivalries of the international elites, through their manipulation (propaganda) and for their benefit -- but your detriment -- is a human "hazard" which gradually destroys one's judgement and character. I'm sorry you have fallen into this trap. I'm sorry there is so much hatred in your life. I hope things get better for you. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:41:46 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/11/iran-to-unveil-big-new-in-the-nuclear-field/#IDComment290752089 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/10/torture-and-plundering-libyas-militias-run-wild/#IDComment289889701 ""...imposing order the way the NATO forces figured they would." Did they really think that, Jason? Just excise this last line. The NATO forces killed Gaddafi, took over Libya, took their oil, took their money, and are now closing in on complete control of anything worth anything. That's what they were after, that's what they got. Mission accomplished. And if LIbya is left a basket case in perpetual turmoil, everyone without a gun struggling just to survive, and those with guns stealing whatever they want or hiring themselves out for the biggest bribe, then Israel is very very happy. Arabs fighting themselves, oil money flowing to and through the bankers, organized revolutionary, anti-Zionist forces neutralized. Mission Accomplished. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:05:02 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/10/torture-and-plundering-libyas-militias-run-wild/#IDComment289889701 http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2012/02/09/if-you-have-to-ask-why-the-answer-is-usually-money/#IDComment289043364 "...profit will only arise from the employment of living human labour, and not from the use of automated machinery..." then "...In the long run, when his competitors catch up with him, the whole industry employs less living labour and hence generates less profit..." I'm no Marxian scholar, so I can't say whether the above is problematic Marxian theory or niqnaq's problematic interpretation of Marx. But from the very beginning of industrialization, to today's advanced automation, ever-increasing industrial productivity decisively disposes of this flawed analysis. "...The only cure is the destruction of capital equipment, and recommencement of competition on a lower, more labour-intensive level, as after a war." This is closer to the truth regarding capitalism's relationship to war. When confronted with competitors who have advantages -- say, a virtually unlimited supply of cheap labor -- which challenges the monopoly profits of the once-dominant powers, those powers can destroy -- ie make war on -- the competition. It's easy to see how, in theory, removing the competition could restore broad profitability. In practice however, restoring broad profitability is neither necessary nor the actual goal. The actual goal is for the elite class to retain power and privilege, which goal is best served by maintaining a firm grip on the National Security apparatus: cops, spooks, and military. Reducing the general populace to a state of poverty is in fact an aid to stabilizing the elite grip on power. It fractures any unity of the people, pits them one against the other in a struggle for survival, and allows the elite to more easily and cheaply bribe that group of people -- let's call them the comprador class -- who realize that the way to live well in an oligarchic tyranny is to aid the ruling class in dominating the rest. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:49:54 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2012/02/09/if-you-have-to-ask-why-the-answer-is-usually-money/#IDComment289043364 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/officials-cia-to-stay-in-iraq-afghanistan-for-years-after-wars/#IDComment287331142 I'm being absolutely sincere when I ask anyone out there if they can explain to me what is keeping the new Iraqi govt from "inviting" the US to close its embassy and leave. Now the easy answer is money -- gobs of it flowing into Iraq and ending up in the pockets of Iraqi politicians. But they can't bribe the Iraqi people, and I'm inclined to think that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the US ***COMPLETELY*** gone, that the vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want US drone overflights of Iraq, don't want US troops rebranded as "trainers" on "Iraqi" air bases, don't want US military aircraft purchased with Iraqi oil money or the US "trainers" and continued (and unwanted by the Iraqi people) "partnership" (wink wink) with the US that goes with that. Perhaps there's some international law regarding embassies, or the original "agreement" (imposed by the US occupier) has some legalism which "constrains" Iraqi sovereignty in this matter of the embassy. Anyone know anything? Anyone seen the embassy-enabling documents? Is it just me? I hear nothing -- absolutely nothing, in the MSM or alternate media -- about the Iraqi attitude to the giant spy-central-and-mercenary-garrison-posing-as-an-embassy. Anyone hear anything? Links, anyone, to the Iraqi view of the giant "embassy" Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:37:20 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/officials-cia-to-stay-in-iraq-afghanistan-for-years-after-wars/#IDComment287331142 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/embassies-in-israel-scramble-to-prepare-for-war/#IDComment287317445 Nathan Hasbara writes: "Don't make war on Israel when Israel makes war on you. Make war on the US, and nearby Arab oil states instead." Can't you at least be a ***little*** subtle? Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:15:51 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/embassies-in-israel-scramble-to-prepare-for-war/#IDComment287317445 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/former-us-base-opened-to-iranian-terrorist-group/#IDComment287172881 What planet are you from, Dave? If you had a point of view, and ideology, a bias, I could understand, but this is just clueless. Perhaps you could explain. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:32:32 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/07/former-us-base-opened-to-iranian-terrorist-group/#IDComment287172881 http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2012/02/06/who-wants-war-with-iran-2/#IDComment286489559 "consummate liar" = skilled politician Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:47:32 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2012/02/06/who-wants-war-with-iran-2/#IDComment286489559 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/05/israel-iran-war-would-quickly-spread/#IDComment285417725 This is interesting. False flag is clearly the way to go for Israel. But false flag requires persuasive credibility, and everyone, grandmas to toddlers knows now what a false flag is, how many times Israel has employed it, how ideally suited and necessary (not to mention predictable) it is in this situation. And every US military commander in the Gulf area must certainly be informed and on full alert re a false flag attack on their command. You might think, under these circumstances that Israel would be hesitant to employ this tactic, but the record has shown the Israelis to actually "celebrate" their brazenness. Would they go "brazen" yet again? Would they declare a big bad "F*ck you" to the entire world yet again? Are they so very stubborn and bat-crap crazy that they will invite a Masada redux, insanely convinced that they enjoy deterrence based on the Sampson Option? Or have they simply milked to the limit the effectiveness of the "Watch out!!! We're so psycho we might do anything!" strategy? Astonishing. Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:59:51 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/05/israel-iran-war-would-quickly-spread/#IDComment285417725 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/05/egypt-files-charges-against-ngo-workers-including-19-americans/#IDComment285397816 Is there anyone who understands this business? I don't. Why the interest in messing with these people? Who exactly, is it that is sending this "message", ordering these arrests? To whom is the message being sent? What is the message, exactly? Help me out here. Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:25:53 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/05/egypt-files-charges-against-ngo-workers-including-19-americans/#IDComment285397816 http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/04/u-s-leak-on-israeli-attack-weakened-a-warning-to-netanyahu/#IDComment284635676 Two points: Russia is a major oil/gas exporter. A US/Israel war with Iran and the giant oil price spike it would generate, would result in a huge financial windfall for Russia. Thus the Russian motivation would be to help the Iranians just enough to make the war costly for the US and to help the Iranians inflict severe damage on Saudi and GCC oil production. For the Chinese, damage to the US would reduce the growing US threat to China. Meanwhile, Iranian oil supplies to China would likely be contracted for at a fixed price, so financially, China would suffer only minimally, while profiting from the post-war rebuilding business. Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:53:53 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2012/02/04/u-s-leak-on-israeli-attack-weakened-a-warning-to-netanyahu/#IDComment284635676 http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/02/01/what-is-a-just-war/#IDComment282967387 Can't hit the bullseye any more dead center than that. The monied and power elite have always run the world, bullying and conniving to maintain their position of preference and profit: people held as cattle for the shearing of their tax money. With progress in education and communication, "the consent of the governed" is gradually -- very gradually -- replacing elite rule as the legitimate basis of state power. Nevertheless, with their massive resources, the elites are unrelenting in their efforts to forestall or roll back this "power grab" by the citizenry, and have, right up to the present day, been largely successful. We need to keep working at it and not be mislead by phony declarations of the "perfection" of our "democracy". Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:37:54 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/02/01/what-is-a-just-war/#IDComment282967387 http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/02/01/what-is-a-just-war/#IDComment282959607 An in-depth inspection of the reasons for the civil war would be useful here, as I suspect the widely held belief that the civil war was fought to free the slaves is not true. That justification is similar to the ex-post facto justification for the Iraq war, ie to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. As we know, that load of bull was declared after the WMDs went missing, as a way of diverting attention from the egg on Bush's face and the blood on his hands. The Civil War started with an attack by the South. It would be well to look into the South's reason for initiating the war, which I suspect will be something other than the North's putative desire to free the slaves. Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:25:17 +0000 http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2012/02/01/what-is-a-just-war/#IDComment282959607 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/01/panetta-us-to-end-combat-role-in-afghanistan-next-year/#IDComment282137232 All this talk about leaving Afghanistan is pure electioneering. Phony promises to win the votes of the weak-minded. ("Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice ,...er..., ...er..., won't get fooled again. GWB). There's no more plan to leave AfPak than there is or was a plan to leave Iraq (and the US is no more out of there -- Iraq -- than they are out of, or planning to get out of AfPak.) But they will eventually leave both places, once the bribe money has run out. Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:43:06 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/01/panetta-us-to-end-combat-role-in-afghanistan-next-year/#IDComment282137232 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/01/panetta-us-to-end-combat-role-in-afghanistan-next-year/#IDComment282129026 Yo, John, "...the pwogwessives continue to press for humanitarian interventions..." Horsesh*t! This is just a gratuitous slam at ":the Left", clearly one of your favorite whipping boys. The push for intervention -- Syria and Iran -- comes almost exclusively from the vast majority of war mongering psychopaths who make their home with the "haters are us" on the right. As with most right-wingers, you just can't deal with reality, see the truth, tell the truth, or accept personal responsibility. It's always someone else's fault, invariably someone on the left. Get a friggin' clue. Thu, 2 Feb 2012 20:32:14 +0000 http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/01/panetta-us-to-end-combat-role-in-afghanistan-next-year/#IDComment282129026