03-05-2017, 05:24 AM
pbrower2a
1. Let's take a walk on the 911 thingie.
a. George Bush Sr. started a military action against Iraq due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
So far so good. The mission had a goal, "sent Iraq's armed forces from all of Kuwait, "mission accomplished". Saddam retains power in Iraq proper , but is driven from Kuwait, a sovereign nation. Kuwait oil well fires put out. That's the end of that war. Powell doctrine followed.
b. A military base is set up in Saudi Arabia proper. A former Mujahadeen person , known as [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden] Osama Bin Laden. [/url] the mastermind did not like this at all and called for Islamic Jihad against said military bases in the "Islamic Holy Land" / "Saudi Arabia". <- This is a major decision point.
b. Osama Bin Laden was essentially a CIA go between during the Soviet/Afghanistan war. <- Here's the linkage with the CIA with Osama Bin Laden.
c. The problem started when the US decided to build a military base in Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden does not like "Infidels on sacred ground. "
d. So... The origin of 911 was a combination of the Afghan proxy war along with building a military base on sacred ground.
e. That means a complete misread of whatever variant of Islam , Osama Bin Laden had in mind.
f. A traceback of policy errors are 2.
1. Use of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets in a proxy war.
2. Lack of knowledge of Saudi politics. Don't just install military bases willy nilly.
f. Conclusion: Neocons as a matter of policy will use any excuse to expand the number of military bases. : Neocons as a matter of policy look in every nook and cranny to justify the use of military force. Therefore, I, Rags conclude based on the logic outlined above, blame Neocons for 911.
As for Russia/China. Yes, both will , like the US use assorted resources to capture natural resources/markets/whatever, just like the US does.
The US is the only meddler that uses "humanitarianism" to justify assorted military actions. It makes an awesome cover in nation states that have stuff we want like oil.
I would not either. The way I see it is that Russians as a people make for excellent hosts. I'd assume Russia also has a fear of being invaded for a 3rd time from the west. I think that's why they're not pleased with this NATO expansion thingie.
China: Yes, of course. While I do think China as a nation , cheats on trade agreements, I do not think that's the Chinese peoples' fault. China features an ancient culture [which should mean China's doing something right]. My impression of Chinese folks, who I know personally is they're pretty damned disciplined. They one's I knew from college were pretty damn hard working. Since this is just from the ones I know, I can't say this applies to all of course.
Uh, why on earth should we choose to get involved in some Islamic kerfuffle? Here is what I think we should do, given the reality of global warming, which is to say, nothing. Most of the "Islamic problem" is in the Middle East, which is due for a severe hammering from global warming. The way I see it, is that Muslims from that part of the world, either get real or get dead. This is a self solving problem where the best option is to do nothing and let nature take its course. I do not want to see any more US blood shed over some religion stuck in the Ag age.
First wave Nomads, [Jonesers} , I think are better actually. You see there are battles worth a fight, say global warming, while others are just distractions like Mideast
religious nonsense like the "Arab Spring"/2T , which I recall is just utterly unhinged from reality-land. I really think the outside interference during our 2T would have been a great big huge mess.
Rags Wrote:http://listverse.com/2013/05/25/10-dirty...perations/
So what?! CIA black ops mean the US is a murderer and wants to control other peoples as well. Try again. So for Putin... "because CIA".
But hey, it's all good, for the ends justify the means. For all power, all the glory, for the Neoliberals, for the NeoCONS, and injustice for all others.
PBrower2a Wrote:Anyone who targets Americans for terrorist attacks can expect that a halfway-competent American leadership will thwart the effort or (in the wake of prior incompetence) exact revenge. Replace "America" and "Americans" with "China" and "Chinese" could expect much the same thing. Had some real-life equivalent of Lex Luthor staged a 9/11 attack on Shanghai and Beijing, then such a person would not be safe even in Langley, Virginia (home of the CIA) from Chinese retribution. We have set an example for any significant power that has an intelligence network capable of homing in on a target and special forces capable of striking anywhere.
1. Let's take a walk on the 911 thingie.
a. George Bush Sr. started a military action against Iraq due to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
So far so good. The mission had a goal, "sent Iraq's armed forces from all of Kuwait, "mission accomplished". Saddam retains power in Iraq proper , but is driven from Kuwait, a sovereign nation. Kuwait oil well fires put out. That's the end of that war. Powell doctrine followed.
b. A military base is set up in Saudi Arabia proper. A former Mujahadeen person , known as [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden] Osama Bin Laden. [/url] the mastermind did not like this at all and called for Islamic Jihad against said military bases in the "Islamic Holy Land" / "Saudi Arabia". <- This is a major decision point.
b. Osama Bin Laden was essentially a CIA go between during the Soviet/Afghanistan war. <- Here's the linkage with the CIA with Osama Bin Laden.
c. The problem started when the US decided to build a military base in Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden does not like "Infidels on sacred ground. "
d. So... The origin of 911 was a combination of the Afghan proxy war along with building a military base on sacred ground.
e. That means a complete misread of whatever variant of Islam , Osama Bin Laden had in mind.
f. A traceback of policy errors are 2.
1. Use of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets in a proxy war.
2. Lack of knowledge of Saudi politics. Don't just install military bases willy nilly.
f. Conclusion: Neocons as a matter of policy will use any excuse to expand the number of military bases. : Neocons as a matter of policy look in every nook and cranny to justify the use of military force. Therefore, I, Rags conclude based on the logic outlined above, blame Neocons for 911.
As for Russia/China. Yes, both will , like the US use assorted resources to capture natural resources/markets/whatever, just like the US does.
The US is the only meddler that uses "humanitarianism" to justify assorted military actions. It makes an awesome cover in nation states that have stuff we want like oil.
Quote:On the other side, I have no desire to see a news report of hijacked aircraft smashing into the Kremlin or into any skyscrapers in China.
I would not either. The way I see it is that Russians as a people make for excellent hosts. I'd assume Russia also has a fear of being invaded for a 3rd time from the west. I think that's why they're not pleased with this NATO expansion thingie.
China: Yes, of course. While I do think China as a nation , cheats on trade agreements, I do not think that's the Chinese peoples' fault. China features an ancient culture [which should mean China's doing something right]. My impression of Chinese folks, who I know personally is they're pretty damned disciplined. They one's I knew from college were pretty damn hard working. Since this is just from the ones I know, I can't say this applies to all of course.
Quote:ISIS, of course, is really, really bad. It is to the Islamic world what Nazism was to Christendom, and we Americans are going to be pulled into the civil war within the Islamic world. If you want to think of what the civil war within the Islamic world will be like, then consider the European and African theater of World War II as the equivalent of a civil war within Christendom. Christendom had to choose between Onward, Christian Soldiers! and the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Onward, Christian Soldiers!is perfectly legal throughout the Christian World. The Horst-Wessel-Lied is outlawed in much of the world.
Uh, why on earth should we choose to get involved in some Islamic kerfuffle? Here is what I think we should do, given the reality of global warming, which is to say, nothing. Most of the "Islamic problem" is in the Middle East, which is due for a severe hammering from global warming. The way I see it, is that Muslims from that part of the world, either get real or get dead. This is a self solving problem where the best option is to do nothing and let nature take its course. I do not want to see any more US blood shed over some religion stuck in the Ag age.
Quote:The generational cycle is real. A bad leader like Dubya or Donald Trump can rush it and make it worse. A reasonably-good leader like Barack Obama might slow and mitigate it some, but he can't stop it. It takes a Lincoln, a Juarez, an FDR, or a Churchill to ride and subjugate the historical equivalent of the wildest bronco.
First wave Nomads, [Jonesers} , I think are better actually. You see there are battles worth a fight, say global warming, while others are just distractions like Mideast
religious nonsense like the "Arab Spring"/2T , which I recall is just utterly unhinged from reality-land. I really think the outside interference during our 2T would have been a great big huge mess.
---Value Added