General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Real Time tonight with Maher is very frustrating. They are talking about the middle east, and
one is very clear, the rebukes on that show, which I believe is representative of the republican party want war.
There is no ambiguity, republicans win you can bank on endless wars
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)They have no clue at all what is going on in the region, who Iran supports, how screwed up and conflicted our position is, or who was responsible for ALL of the attacks outside of the region. Fucking clueless. None of them got Bill's opening point about us being on the wrong side.
still_one
(92,372 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But the rethugs he brings on always got me too pissed off. And I podcast when I drive. Not good.
delrem
(9,688 posts)"Republicans" alone aren't the cause of the US being gung-ho for "regime change in Syria", in supporting "moderate rebels" to that end, in finally getting a passable excuse to bomb Syria -- ignoring any possible connections with what else is going on. "Republicans" alone aren't the cause of the dissolution of Libya.
The USA has a deep to the bone bipartisan war going on here, a war which coincides with PNAC plans, and which coincides with PNAC apparatchiks like Victoria Nuland passing from Bill Clinton, to Dick Cheney, to Hillary Clinton, to John Kerry, in a steady ascension.
still_one
(92,372 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)there aren't many if at all better candidates for regime change than Assad. He is actively committing mass murder, indiscriminately shelling cities with barrel-spike bombs, people trapped underneath the rubble... a horrible way to live & die.
Given that the US has had a long-term interest with regime change regarding Syria, there are quite likely ulterior motives at play. If human rights or giving the citizens "freedom & democracy", we would have took out the 'House of Saud' a long time ago & didn't interfere when it came to managing their natural resources.
Regarding the recent regime changes & the overall Arab spring, Qatar has a very troubling interest in regime change as well. I think they want privatized dictatorship that also enforces Wahabbi ideology.
-----
The first battlefield test of Qatars proxy chain was in Libya, where there was a broad regional consensus as well as U.S. support to oust then-leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. Qatar, together with the UAE, had signed on to Western airstrikes against the regime. But Doha also wanted to help build up rebel capacity on the ground.
They had to literally go to their address book and say, Who do we know in Libya?' says Krieg. This is how they coordinated the Libya operation. Doha lined up a collection of businessmen, old Brotherhood friends, and ideologically aligned defectors, plying them with tens of millions of dollars and 20,000 tons of arms, the Wall Street Journal later estimated. After a months-long war, the rebels took Tripoli and Qaddafi was dead. Dohas clients found themselves among the most powerful political brokers in the new Libya. And long after the NATO strikes had ended, some Qatari-backed militias continued to receive support, says Bruguière.
Amid the initial euphoria of the Arab Spring, many expected the nascent summer protests in Syria to quickly topple the Assad regime. Presidents in Tunisia and Egypt had lasted just weeks before resigning, after all, and the world had quickly rallied to oust a more persistent Qaddafi. By August, Washington was calling on Assad to step down as well. Not long thereafter, Qatar began its Syrian operation, modeled on the Libyan adventure.
Like the tendering of a contract, Doha issued a call for bidders to help with the regimes overthrow. When we started our battalion [in 2012], the Qataris said, Send us a list of your members. Send us a list of what you want the salaries and support needs,' Hossam, the Syrian restaurant owner, remembers. He and dozens of other would-be rebel leaders submitted a pitch. He doesnt say how much his brigade received, but says his own fundraising efforts for humanitarian goods have yielded hundreds of thousands of riyals.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/30/the-case-against-qatar/
Al-Qaeda used charity fronts in the Bosnian wars, ISIS receives funding the same way too so I'm wondering how much fund-raising is really humanitarian.
delrem
(9,688 posts)The USA has been leading on it.
Y'all should be proud.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)said anything about how the best hope for a counter balance to ISIS in the region was IRAN?
Republican wars are such monumentally stupid wars. Iran has moderated slightly over the years, unlike Saudi Arabia and the ISIS army they had a big hand in creating.
ISIS scares me a lot more than Iran ever did.
Stupid assholes on the right just never think any of these things through and there is no way a sane person can get through to them.
If we don't want WWIII, we are going to have to find a way to defeat them.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Cat Stevens was the only one who seemed to have a clue but there was still a large amount of truth that was untold.
Howard Dean in one sentence won the entire Islamic distinction debate, made a point about the propaganda. ISIS is similar in a lot of ways to this cult -- https://croydongate.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/the-essential-guide-to-potters-house-false-doctrines/
It helps them with the propaganda in that they preach about the west's war on Islam so the more they make it about Islam the more it confirms what these cults preach, creating this cycle.
bananas
(27,509 posts)Maybe I'll watch it.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I just mean overall when the topic is Islam, middle-east, armed conflict -- governments. Whenever someone says, "I'd like to see Saudi Arabia more involved in fighting ISIS" I want to scream -- the problem with ISIS is if they win or already happening within their territory is basically another Saudi Arabia.
delrem
(9,688 posts)JonLP24
(29,322 posts)in the whole should we be using the Islam distinction or should we not be using it that for awhile Real Time was painfully bringing up the topic over-and-over. Dean basically summed it up best in one sentence but I don't know, haven't watched it in a few weeks.
Last time was when he guests like Dean, Sanders, Glenn Greenwald, etc.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)a goddamn thing we can do about it, outside of a revolution.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)I had heard it all before and did not want to listen again. But stayed for the half way humor and the new rules. Aways enjoy those two spots. Did I notice that Bernie Sanders is on next week? That will be good.
Cha
(297,562 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,993 posts)and they will never ever pay for their wars. their great grandkids will.