Jump to content


Member Since 17 June 2013 - 10:05 AM
Online Last Active Dec 15 2018 08:30 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: So what about this Brexit thing?

15 December 2018 - 07:54 PM

View PostTraveler, on 14 December 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

Thanks for the updates. Brexit has totally flummoxed me. All those things you cite were pretty obvious to the leavers, no?
Which Leavers? Boris Johnson - yes. But he doesn't care about his country or his countrymen, he did it for personal ambition!
My theory: Brexit was a useful device, not a real objective. The problem is that if you get the thing you are in a bit of a dog-catches-car situation. The expectation was that Leave would lose, and the Leave promoters would have prosperous careers cultivating the angst about Brexit for personal political gain, ensuring Conservative majorities (due to vote efficiency) & a large cadre of UKIP EU parliamentarians built on the foundation of failed-Brexit resentment.
This is the through-line of anglo-conservativism, from the UK, to Australia, to Canada, to the US, the point is to win power to enrich the wealthy and unleash the growth potential of business profits. The means to that end - the use of nonsensical rubbish that is based on a foundation of lies about the voters' own interests - dictates that you can never actually accomplish the stated goals! Once you do it everyone might notice it didn't work!

In Topic: The Weakly Standard Is Shutting Down

14 December 2018 - 03:35 PM

It will not be missed.


The Weekly Standard isn’t just any conservative magazine. It’s distinctively the “neocon”magazine. Its founding editor, Bill Kristol, was the intellectual architect of the Project for a New American Century...

...there’s an inconvenient truth to neocons: Of all the conservative factions, they are objectively the most dangerous.

Invading Iraq was a catastrophic blunder

Never-Trump neocons’ essential paradox is that for all Trump’s many sins, he (so far) hasn’t done anything even remotely as pernicious as the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In its main phase from 2003 to 2011, this war led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, plus what appears to be around 400,000 Iraqis. And that was only the beginning. The regional destabilization the invasion touched off led directly to the rise of ISIS and a whole new round of fighting in Iraq in which many thousands of people have died.


It’s easy to snark about the conspiratorial thinking of the current president and the relentless dishonesty of his press operation, but the Bush-era conspiracy theories about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were similarly ridiculous, and got way more people killed.

In Topic: RUSSIA

14 December 2018 - 12:20 PM

View PostGeorge Powell, on 06 December 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

... the SAS chief said 'Nobody in the British army believes Assad was responsible for the Douma attack'

View PostJ-CA, on 10 December 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

Citation required.
If the head of the SAS said such a thing publically it would be easy to find, it would be a scandal, I suspect this did not happen.
My tune has not changed.
Facts in evidence:
1. The current head of the SAS didn't say "Nobody in the British army believes Assad was responsible for the Douma attack."
2. Some former head of the SAS, Shaw, said he doubts Assad did it based on his assessment of Assad's perceptions of the risks involved.
3. I said that if the statement in #1 had been attributed to the serving head of the SAS it would be a scandal.

Unless you dispute #1 above I don't see how I was incorrect in my assessment.

Other facts that seem quite indisputable:
4. The consensus view of the powers opposing Assad is that he is responsible for chemical attacks, not just one but many.
5. Assad's punishment for being assigned responsibility for the attack was exactly limited to the bombing of some buildings in the country that were related to chemical weapons production but had no immediate impact on the war effort. Previous chemical attacks attributed to him also produced similar or non-responses.

I think it follows from those facts that the opinions based on Assad's motivations should carry less weight because if Assad did carry out the attack then clearly his assessment of the risks involved being extremely low were entirely correct. This means that the assessment of people like Shaw has been shown, by subsequent events, to be incorrect. Given that the entire argument relies on the "obvious" deterrent of retaliation that hasn't occurred it is a pretty devastating blow to the position.

In Topic: RUSSIA

12 December 2018 - 03:36 PM

And the timeline point above is pretty hilarious, Obama delivers and ultimatum and then.. 8+ months of fighting ensues before the gas attack - clearly causation has been demonstrated!

In Topic: RUSSIA

12 December 2018 - 03:34 PM

View PostGeorge Powell, on 12 December 2018 - 02:29 PM, said:

You are spreading misinformation. The SAS chief did say he did not believe Assad did the gas attack, you have found it and confirmed it, but now you change your tune.
The serving chief of the SAS said that? No he didn't. You keep saying he did but he didn't.
And read former SAS chief Shaw's words, he didn't say that senior military officials in the US have evidence Assad didn't do it, all he said was that they agree that they don't understand his rationale. You are latching on to anything that remotely points in the direction you support.
You are cherry picking here, West said he believes the government, you just choose to ignore that part because it is inconvenient. He makes the literal point that actual evidence is more valuable than guesses about motivations.

Who benefits from the gas attacks? Assad benefitted from that gas attacks. He made the calculation that he could get away with it and he was correct. This isn't very hard to understand, we all saw it happen, the international community engaged in a massive conspiracy to create a false flag gas attack so they could do nothing? Ok, sure, why not? Obviously your explanation is the most straightforward one.

PS: Your reuters link is to something random.