Former Department of Defense Chief Expects "30 Year War"

HughPickens.com writes Susan Page writes at USA Today that Leon Panetta, former head of the CIA and Secretary of the Department of Defense, says Americans should be braced for a long battle against the brutal terrorist group Islamic State that will test U.S. resolve. "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," says Panetta, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed." It is no surprise to Panetta that the assessment in his new book "Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace" is drawing White House ire. "Look, I've been a guy who's always been honest," Panetta says. "I've been honest in politics, honest with the people that I deal with. I've been a straight talker. Some people like it; some people don't like it. But I wasn't going to write a book that kind of didn't express what I thought was the case."

Comments

Oh please, Biden said it best

[WillAffleckUW]

ISIL is both financed and given logistics support from primarily three countries that are "supposedly" allies of the US UK etc.

Turkey.

UAE

and Saudi Arabia.

Nuke those and ISIL dies.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[RingDev]

Not real keen on nuking anyone, but this is one of the underlying issues.

We can pretty well mop up ISIL's ability to generate revenue via oil, but we can't control Turkey, UAE, or SA by bombing ISIL. We need economic sanctions and UN backing (good luck with that, between Russia's veto and the world's addition to oil) to start putting pressure on these nations.

We can kill all the "generals" we want, but so long as the princes with the purses are funding their causes, some new general will step up to collect that check.

Also, kinda handy for Ponetta to release a book critical of the President/Democrats and go on a press tour claiming a 30 year war exactly 1 month before the midterm election. I'm sure that's just a coincident... right?

-Rick

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Anonymous Coward]

another American civil war.

I thought that was what "the war on drugs" was...

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[geekoid]

Duuurrr. It's hard, so nuke them. Herp Derp.

Not only is a werewolf a myth, but so is the idea of a silver bullet solution .
unless you want to drink horrid beer. Life's really too short for that nonsense.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not actually necessary to nuke anyone. But you won't have a lasting peace in the middle east without reducing the injustice.

The USA was founded on the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. And by "the people" the founders meant ordinary people - that the USA would be different from Europe where ordinary people were being exploited for the benefit of a small hereditary ruling class. Fundamentally, it's about individual freedom - that a person should not be artificially limited by the circumstances of their birth. Not that the USA always lived up to that ideal - e.g. slavery.

So that means two things. First, that USA needs take a stand for democracy and stop supporting hereditary dictatorships - even if those dictatorships are beneficial to a few rich Americans (e.g. the Bushes). Second, the USA needs to take a stand against all racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in the middle east. And that includes Israel. It's a nice fantasy it's possible to discriminate in favor of a particular group without discriminating against everyone else. But you can't. It's not possible to have a "whites only" (or even "whites mostly") drinking fountain that doesn't discriminate against people who aren't white. To put it bluntly Israel would need to outlaw absolutely all discrimination against people who aren't Jewish.

We live in a world where it's technologically possible to hop on a jet plane and be literally on the opposite side of the planet in 20-30 hours. We live in a world where it's technologically possible for a Palestinian to go live in Japan and eat palak paneer while wearing a sombrero and listening to Beethoven. But politically we are still limited by the circumstances of our birth - the notion that someone born within some arbitrary little geographical boundary should be constrained to live out their entire life within that boundary - perhaps even that the people should be constrained to live in the same little region as their distant ancestors and that they should have to eat the same food and wear the same clothes and believe the same things as their distant ancestors.

There is little awareness of the benefits of taking the good from a variety of different cultures. Instead there is this simplistic desire to paint one culture as entirely good and all other cultures as entirely bad - and to then imagine some global conflict between the "good" culture and all the other "bad" cultures - where the fate of humanity rests on the "good" culture obliterating the "bad" cultures. In the end, the goal should be for the middle east to look something like the European Union - where people are free to live and work and travel throughout the region regardless of which particular country they were born in - or their race or religion or ethnicity or who their parents were.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[shutdown -p now]

Good luck with that, between Russia's veto

Are you kidding me? Economic sanctions on UAE and KSA are Russia's wet dream. And unlike US, Russia is directly threatened by Salafi extremism, on its own soil - who do you think funds the mujis in Chechnya and Dagestan (and lately also Tatarstan)?

If there's one thing that Russia could agree on with US, it's blowing KSA to smithereens, whether figuratively or literally. The problem here is US.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[beh]

Hmm - strange how "nuking" people or places can be deemed a solution worthy of discussion.

Nukes are so well targetted - so, not just do you say "Turkey, UAE, and Saudi Arabia" support ISIL - but at the same time, that those countries have noone opposing any support for ISIL or radical islamics - and so if you nuke them, you're not going to hit anyone "innocent".

The only things nukes or other more military action do is to feed radicalism - and with rising radicalism on the other side, you will find more radical policies on our side "Nuke them!".

Military support is needed to help clean up the conflict - but it does need a longer term engagement, and it needs something else than airstrikes - but actual boots on the ground to prevent massacres. This is dangerous - it puts "our" soldiers sent there right in harms way, but we can't show people there a "better alternative" by delivering it in warheads.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[3.5 stripes]

No it isn't, no more than christiantity.

Seriously, meet a few muslems before you parrot lines off groups that have been looking for another demon to finance the MIC, and often had a hand in creating (Al Quaeda, orginally financed by the US to fight the commie threat.. etc).

95% of muslems want exactly what most 1st worlders want, a safe place to raise, feed and educate their children, and hopefully some opportunity for those children to do better.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Talderas]

The silent majority of muslims is irrelevant. As long as they continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities they are irrelevant. It is a pattern that has repateded itself numerous times in the past century. Japan, China, Soviet Russia, Germany, and Rwanda to name a few. A dogmatic and tyrannical minority causes acts of atrocities while the silent [b]peaceful[/b] majority sits idly by practically complicit in the atrocities commited by the minority. It is no different with Islam.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[JRV31]

But if you nuke them the sand turns to glass. How will we get at the oil.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The silent majority of muslims is irrelevant.

They're not silent at all. They've been all over the media denouncing Islamic State and other militant groups. What the fuck do you want them to do, picket outside your house?

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Talderas]

Yes. That's all they've been doing. Denouncing them and saying Islam is a religion of peace. It's irrelevant because it doesn't provide any sort of solution. It's just words meant to distance them from the extremists with the hope that people won't turn on them for the actions of the extremists. I already know you don't agree with their actions. I know the majority of you just want peace. You're beating a drum saying stuff I already know and have known for some time. Provide ideas on courses of action that would deal with the problem instead of distancing yourself. You know what muslims aren't irrelevant? The Kurdish fighters struggling against ISIS right now. The ones who are beset on three sides by ISIS fighters fighting to hold them back. The very ones dying to stop them while we sit mighty on our high horse making ineffectual airstrikes against ISIS when what those Kurds need is manpower to back them up. Manpower that no one will put on the ground without the US doing it first and we have a President who is conducting war by politics. They're right and proper fucked.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[operagost]

Seriously, learn how to spell "Muslim", then look up "Sunni" and "Shiite" on Wikipedia. Catholics and Protestants aren't burning each other at the stake anymore.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Why are we picking on Muslims though? Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way. Now it's generally understood that while many terrorists are Muslim, not many Muslims are terrorists. But still, we're always talking about Islam, about Muslims. Why is there any expectation for them to do more than merely denounce Islamic State?

What are we doing, as men, beyond merely denouncing Islamic State? After all, the ranks of Islamic State are pretty much entirely male. Now, I'm aware that while many (virtually all) terrorists are male, not many males are terrorists. However, as men, are we compelled to do more than just sit by while radical men commit atrocities? Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?

To me, it's no less ridiculous to consider the Islamic State to be a problem for Muslims to solve than it is to consider them to be a problem to be a problem for men to solve. We're all people, and Islamic State poses a threat to all of us alike. I see no value in expecting any one group to take the lead in solving this issue simply because of some perceived commonality between them and Islamic State, whether based on religion, gender, or some other factor.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Talderas]

Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?

Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful. They are the ones that are bringing themselves into it and consequently making their statements irrelevant. They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved. They continue to remain irrelevant voices after entering the topic.

So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions. Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[WillAffleckUW]

But if you nuke them the sand turns to glass. How will we get at the oil.

We don't need it any more.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful... They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved.

That's my point. They obviously have some reason that they feel they should be involved: people like gtall and you constantly talking about Muslims that "continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities". There's an undeniable tendency for Westerners to point to all the moderate Muslims and ask why they're not doing anything, to accuse them of complicity by virtue of their inaction. That is why they feel they should be involved, because they're being accused of aiding terrorists simply by sharing the same faith. I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists? Hint: it might have something to do with Western society associating "terrorism" with "Islam" but not "maleness", with no rational basis for doing so.

So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions.

You brought them up because they're Muslim. You didn't bring up the Yazidis that fight along side them. You didn't bring up the Assyrians that fight alongside them. You didn't bring up the Chaldean Catholics that fight alongside them. You're holding up the Kurds as model Muslims. Muslims who not only denounce Islamic State, but also take action against it. The reason you focus on them and not any of the countless other groups that both denounce and combat Islamic State is because they're Muslim.

Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.

While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices. Either way, this has little to do with the fact that people still talk about Islam like it's more relevant to Islamic State than is gender. It's a sad fact that if you were to accuse men (in general) of aiding Islamic State through inaction, you'd be looked at like you were mad, but if you accuse Muslims (in general) instead, it's somehow "intuitive".

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[Talderas]

I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists?

While it doesn't really matter to me since what I care about is that they're tossing about hollow and pointless words without ideas, suggestions, or actions, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that primary antagonist at this point, ISIS, has a goal to establish an Islamic Caliphate and enforce Sharia Law on all citizens under its rule. That's a pretty religious bent that is far more dominant compared to the gender of those involved.

That's partially the reason I brought up the Kurds the other reason being that those who are speaking without substence are themselves using their religion as the vessel by which they make their point. Thus I was comparing like to like. The other groups you mentioned don't matter because they're all kurdish fighters. What matter is that there a kurdish muslims who are fighting against ISIS. The various religious sects of kurds may be fighting ISIS individually but they're all united against it.

While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices.

The last time the US chose full military commitment was with the Korean War and that only went south because the commanding general ignored the stop line set for him which provoked the Chinese response that led to the two state solution currently in place for Korea. Eisenhower had otherwise engaged in a policy by when he would avoid conflict although he was ready to fully unleash the US military should the need arise. Then came Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara and that's when the idea of flexible response took root and has since been the influence for American military involvement. Could additional air power have changed the outcome of Vietnam? Yes it could have if it were allowed to be used but it would have been pointless without the ground troops to follow up because we never put troops in Cambodia or Laos to go after Viet Cong safe havens and we never committed troops to invade North Vietnam. While we do not currently operate under a policy officially called flexible response the approach is still similar and seeks to limit involvement wherever possible. You're also mistaking my statement for saying we need a full military commitment. That is hardly the case. What we need is a military objective and then to apply all forces necessary to obtaining that objective. If the objective requires boots on the ground then we put those boots on the ground. We do not rely on forces not under our command to achieve those objectives for us. Right now, as best I can tell, our strategy appears to be to bomb ISIS and see if that helps. That's assinine.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[shizzle]

Also, kinda handy for Ponetta to release a book critical of the President/Democrats and go on a press tour claiming a 30 year war exactly 1 month before the midterm election. I'm sure that's just a coincident... right?

That's a convenient theory, but if you'd bother to check, you'd find that Panetta is also a Democrat. He served as Clinton's Chief of Staff and was CIA Director and Secretary of Defense under Obama himself. There's no apparent reason for him to want to critizize Democrats.

It really makes the criticism that much more damning, IMO. And then there's your knee-jerk assumption that anyone who would criticize Obama must be a Republican...

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[jafac]

Why are we picking on Muslims though?

Because, Israel.

This issue also dovetails nicely with our new Political Pundit class of wealthy upper-class washouts from MBA programs. These guys take a few history classes, and all of a sudden they see this threat from the great Ottomans who will rise again to wreak havock on Western Civilization. So these dudes get up there on FoxNews and cry about how there are a few hundred heavily armed illiterate thugs 10000 miles away sitting on their oil patch, threatening to kill infidels, and suddenly, a genocidal war is looking like a good idea.

And along with that, are the Christian Fundamentalist whackjobs in the US, who are mostly too retarded to make bombs, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell them from ISIS. These guys get into their apocolyptic prophecy, and this Islam stuff fits right in with the story they all want to hear mommy and daddy read to them before tucking into bed: That Jesus is going to save them from the evil brown-skinned people.

It's also a nice recipe for self-sustaining endless war profiteering.

Add all that together, and it's no wonder this is our #1 national obsession.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

They are also mainly populated by people with facial hair. But is that relevant? No. But Islam is.

See, this is specifically the type of idiocy that I'm trying to highlight. "But Islam is." What a strong argument.

Just read the Koran once. Denying that the Koran sanctions things like Jihad and death for apostates is like denying the Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus. It's not just a few obscure verses.

Your argument is, and I don't use this word lightly, stupid. The Christian Bible supports the resurrection of Jesus as well as the genocide of competing sects. It's also not just a few obscure verses. You conveniently focus on the socially acceptable parts, ignoring the parts that you find distasteful, while at the same time failing to recognize that Muslims are just as capable as Christians when it comes to these sorts of mental gymnastics. Yes, the Muslim Koran sanctions genocide, much like the Christian Bible does. Moderate people ignore these parts whether they're Muslim or Christian.

On another note, you are one click away from googling about many females who have joined ISIS.

As though that fucking makes a difference. There's secular individuals joining the jihad for various reasons (money, power, the usual), but you seem to dismiss that quite handily. Why should I give a fuck if some women join? Or are you now saying that Islamic State is female-dominated?

And don't forget that the men of ISIS were raised by mothers who raised them on a religion that teaches subjection of women (The Koran explicitly sanctions wife-beating.)

And the Christian Bible explicitly sanctions lots of reprehensible shit, but I don't see you getting all riled up about that.

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

*whoosh*

Re:Oh please, Biden said it best

[NoImNotNineVolt]

However, Judaism and Christianity have a huge mitigating factor, and it's that they've undergone a lot of liberal transformations that allows them to do these sort of 'mental gymnastics'. And it makes a difference among its believers. So you might have had that abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian, but suicide bombing aren't exactly a huge problem among Christians and Jews. You have a Reformed Judaism. There is no Reformed Islam. We don't have a problem with Jewish/Christian apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Moses or Jesus in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed.

You know, we also don't have a problem with Muslim apostates getting killed, performing honor killing, suicide bombings, or advocating that people who draw Mohammed in a disrespectful fashion being prosecuted or killed. These acts you describe are in reality not significantly more common than the "abortion clinic bombing 20 years ago by some crazy Christian". You dismiss Christian terrorism as some fringe issue, when in reality the last abortion clinic bombing in the US was in 2012. You talk about barbaric acts committed by Muslims but don't realize that an overwhelming majority of Islamic societies don't see such atrocities, at all. Your perception of Islam is shaped by video footage of masked Hamas militants firing automatic rifles in the crowded streets of Gaza, or women being beaten for being raped in Saudi Arabia. It is not shaped by (lack of) video footage of boring, stable, and modern Islamic states such as Bosnia, Turkey, or Indonesia. The Muslim world is a very large place, and the barbaric practices you describe are practiced only in a small part of it. You let that influence your perception of all Muslims, but for some reason you don't let "some crazy Christian" influence your perception of all Christians. If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, the finals would be dominated by Westerners, and I say that as a Westerner myself.

When Muslim suicide bombers tell you that they really believe they are going to die and get their virgins, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many kill themselves voluntarily spouting this dogma, you still aren't convinced they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than killing themselves to prove to you that they actually believe this.

And when Muslim people tell you that they really just want food, shelter, clothing, safety, and the ability to raise and educate their children, you don't believe them. It doesn't matter how many live their entire lives seeking nothing more than these things, you still aren't convinced that they really believe it. I don't know what else they can do more than living their entire lives according to these desires to prove to you that they actually believe this.

So perhaps Islam after a few centuries might go through these changes as well, and be no different than your local Mormons. But I personally don't think we have 200 years. Who is to say that in 30 years a nuclear bomb might be something you can create with a 3d printer?

Indeed, let's not forget that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. In some sense, it's more reasonable to compare today's Islam to Christianity circa 1400. You know, back when Christians had 3 competing popes, were pursuing genocide against the Jews in Krakow and expelling them elsewhere, burned Jan Hus to death for heresy and killing his followers, and still did a bit of crusading from time to time. Some perspective helps.

Also, I'm not sure how a futuristic 3d printer is going to turn ABS plastic into enriched uranium.

First to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Now isn't that convenient to the business of war?

Re:First to say it

[ArcadeMan]

So.... 3D printed drones?

Re:First to say it

[Opportunist]

What? You nuts? How should the military industry complex benefit from that?

Why the fuck do you think we went on this eternal war? To end up with peace again?

Re:First to say it

[Opportunist]

After years and years of screwing over half the world? Probably not. But you could start by not pouring more oil into the fire. I mean, let's be blunt here, look at how your soldiers treat people where they invade. If you're not anti-US in those areas before, you sure are after. There was an incredibly strong pro-US sentiment in Iraq right after the invasion. That changed damn quickly.

Re:First to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Chile? Guatemala? Nicaragua? Indonesia?

You're just an asshat.

Re:First to say it

[geekoid]

we didn't screw over half the world. We made them extremely rich. There issue is that small group kept almost all the money, and that's not our fault.

Re:First to say it

[aralin]

Communism is not so bad, the dictatorship of communist party is pretty evil. But considering the US makes coups in countries to install their own dictators in them on regular basis, this would hardly be a justification. The only true justification is that you felt like it. As for the WWII, Japan sends its thank you card on regular basis. There are still no Japanese being born with straight teeth, 70 years later. As for Europe, you only went there to protect your own interest and to grab as much of Europe as possible before Russia gets there. Let's not kid ourselves. If you actually cared, you entered the war in 1938 or 1939 or 1940 or 1941 ... you know?

As the other guy said, you really need to at least get through high school level history before you post about these things. Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:First to say it

[c6gunner]

I mean, let's be blunt here, look at how your soldiers treat people where they invade.

With kid gloves?

Seriously, dude, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The extent to which the US will go to avoid civilian casualties and avoid violating local customs and sensibilities is astounding. This is a fairly new thing in combat - previous wars were butchery by comparison - yet the US takes more flack for it now than it ever has before.

There was an incredibly strong pro-US sentiment in Iraq right after the invasion. That changed damn quickly.

Of course it did. You had local warlords slaughtering anyone who cooperated with western forces, and terrorizing the rest into submission. You had the same warlords plus related propaganda outlets spewing nonsense about how the horrible crusaders were raping women and eating children for breakfast. You even had lovely useful-idiots (you can guess where my finger is pointing) in the west repeating the same lies and jizzing themselves with glee every time they got to post online about some innocent getting killed or some detainees being abused. And you had 90% of the western population repeating the lie that "we were lied to about the reasons for the war", and claiming nobody gives a shit about the Iraqis and we're only there for the oil. In such an atmosphere I'm surprised that support for the US presence stayed as strong as it did.

The Germans and Japanese in WW2 got treated far worse than the Iraqis ever did, but in those wars we didn't have to contend with an organized resistance, or a grassroots propaganda machine within our own borders working against our interests.

Re:First to say it

[mi]

Communism is not so bad, the dictatorship of communist party is pretty evil.

Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.

But considering the US makes coups in countries to install their own dictators in them.

Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?

on regular basis

What "regular basis"? We haven't done that in decades!..

As for the WWII, Japan sends its thank you card on regular basis.

Oh, so the country that attacked us and got its head handed to it as a result is upset with us — and that's your argument to support the notion of our being inherently evil somehow? But, great — if really do think, we should not have been "screwing with the world" during the WW2 either, then you've made my point...

As for Europe, you only went there to protect your own interest and to grab as much of Europe as possible before Russia gets there.

Really? So, just what land did we "grab" as a result and what sort of economic benefit did we get from it?

There are still no Japanese being born with straight teeth, 70 years later

Citation needed.

If you actually cared, you entered the war in 1938 or 1939 or 1940 or 1941 ... you know?

Cared for what exactly? The war did only started in 1939, and we started helping soon afterwards.

As the other guy said, you really need to at least get through high school level history

You — and the other asshole — should stop ad hominems. Attack the argument, not the arguer next time.

Re:First to say it

[Mr. Slippery]

Do you think, our involvement in the First World War was "screwing the world"? How about the Second? I bet, you don't lament those...

WWI was a pointless battle between imperial powers and we should have stayed the hell out of it. The Pacific battle of WWII would not have happened if we hadn't played the empire game in the Pacific, stealing Hawaii and threatening Japan with Perry's "black ships"; the European theater was a straight-up result of WWI.

We should never have been in Korea or Vietnam. Or Iraq or Afghanistan. Or the Philippines or Cuba or Puerto Rico or Guam.

Our history since the Civil War shows that the founders were 100% right about the temptations of a standing army: once you've got one, you want to use it.

Re:First to say it

[mi]

WWI was a pointless battle between imperial powers and we should have stayed the hell out of it.

An interesting prospective and not an uncommon one — for Libertarian-minded Americans. But I was curious about the opinion of Europeans and Leftist Americans — they don't think all wars are wrong...

stealing Hawaii

Huh? We took over Hawaii in 1898 — 40 years before Pearl Harbor! And, whatever you think of the takeover, we didn't take it from the Japanese...

We should never have been in Korea or Vietnam.

If the USSR were allowed to take over much larger swaths of the world, chances were, the sheer numbers would've allowed them to prevail upon us despite the inherent inefficiencies of the Communist/Socialist economy... You may not think so, but your arguments aren't any better than those of the people, who hold the opposite view. That's practical.

The more emotional argument is analogous to interfering, when you see somebody being beaten by thugs — no law requires you to interfere. Except honor...

temptations of a standing army: once you've got one, you want to use it

Oh, you always want to use it — it is just that you only get to do so, if you have it.

Yours, BTW, is an argument against any sort of empowerment — not just a country with an army. An individual knowing karate or kung-fu may be tempted to use it in a situation, where a weakling (like today's Europe) would choose to turn away or limit himself to "raising awareness"...

Re:First to say it

[aralin]

Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.

This is patently untrue. Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other. Further, what you refer to was a socialism, communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others. Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living. The problems you describe are the result of the authoritarian rule of communist party. It is a common mistake. Most Americans make it.

Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?

Hugo Chavez was not a dictator, he had a huge popular support throughout his rule. He also left the country in better state than he found it for its people. As for Cuba, it was made a shithole by US sanctions, not by Castro. Even though he is bad enough by himself. Look at the US supplanted dictators, there is a whole list on wikipedia. Most of them were tyrants. Saddam Hussein is one of them. He was helped to power and kept in power by US to fight Iran. Which rebelled after they threw out another US installed dictator, Reza Pahlavi. Read some about him.

What "regular basis"? We haven't done that in decades!..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
And you just did it in Ukraine last year. But that situation is still developing. In 5 years you will see what you've actually done there once the US state department will stop paying for the propaganda.

Really? So, just what land did we "grab" as a result and what sort of economic benefit did we get from it?

The only period of sustained economic growth in your country? The economic and political hegemony? Doesn't ring a bell?

Cared for what exactly? The war did only started in 1939, and we started helping soon afterwards.

Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities? Cared for your allies? Cared for the values you so profess every time you go to war? That.

You — and the other asshole — should stop ad hominems. Attack the argument, not the arguer next time.

When I make arguments, list couple articles on wikipedia, you conveniently ignore them. There is no point in making arguments with uneducated people. First go and learn history and politics, then we can have some reasonable argument.

Re:First to say it

[shutdown -p now]

But certainly Vietnam — right? Even though there are no perceptible differences in our reasons and motivations for it (preventing yet another country from falling into Communism — the most murderous school of thought known to man so far).

So pray tell, how many napalm-burned villages is an acceptable price from "preventing country from falling into communism"?

Re:First to say it

[shutdown -p now]

But I was curious about the opinion of Europeans and Leftist Americans — they don't think all wars are wrong...

For someone who likes to use the word "communism" a lot, you sure don't seem to be well acquainted with its writings. Communists called WW1 a mindless imperialist massacre long before that became, essentially, the prevailing view - in fact, before it even began.

The more emotional argument is analogous to interfering, when you see somebody being beaten by thugs — no law requires you to interfere. Except honor...

Your honor seem to be quiet about using other thugs, though. Do the people massacred on the stadium in Chile in the name of fighting communism - most of them for nothing more than words - weigh up on your consciousness at all?

Re:First to say it

[mi]

Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other.

Dictatorship can exist without Communism, yes — Sulla was one example, Pinochet was another. Communism, on the other hand, can not exist without dictatorship — its economic ineptitude is such, that people revolt very quickly unless the Communists manage to gain dictatorial power.

communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others

Your attempts to distinguish between Socialism and Communism are silly — Socialism is nothing but "Communism-lite". Says so in "Das Kapital"...

Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living.

No, they aren't — their apartments and cars are smaller, and everything (that is not subsidized) is more expensive. And what good they do have, is despite their Socialism, not thanks to it.

Hugo Chavez was not a dictator

Well, maybe, there are subtle differences between "president for life" and "dictator", but I'm not aware of it.

He also left the country [Venezuela -mi] in better state than he found it for its people

And what sources can you cite to support this claim? Maybe, it is the quadrupling of the murder rate in the country, which makes it better "for its people"? Or its "wonderful" GDP growth (despite the spiking demand for oil)?

And you just did [caused a coup and installed a dictator -mi] it in Ukraine last year.

Wow... Am I talking to Joe Biden? Please, cite the sources proving both: a) the US caused a coup in Ukraine last year; b) the current President of Ukraine is a dictator.

The only period of sustained economic growth in your country? The economic and political hegemony?

I asked you, what did the US grab — as you alleged we did. The hegemony was simply due to the fact, we weren't destroyed by the bombings — thanks to geography, not any premeditated evil plan... Our laissez-faire Capitalism may have had something to do with our economic power too.

Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities?

Nothing was known by the outside world about Hitler's atrocities until circa 1943 — when Polish intelligence managed to smuggle some proofs from their (occupied) country. Earlier rumors were dismissed as anti-German propaganda. One of us, indeed, ignorant of history...

Of course, by 1943 we already deeply involved — helping our allies both economically and militarily — because we did (and do) care for these values even if we didn't know the worst of it, when we started.

When I make arguments, list couple articles on wikipedia

Listing a couple of articles does not make an argument. You can cite such articles to support an argument, but you didn't... Your arguments — and I am using the term loosely — were quite apart from the links you gave.

First go and learn history and politics

Shkolota, my knowledge of history and politics far exceeds yours — and even that of your Kremlin handlers :-)

Re:First to say it

[aralin]

Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other.

Dictatorship can exist without Communism, yes — Sulla was one example, Pinochet was another. Communism, on the other hand, can not exist without dictatorship — its economic ineptitude is such, that people revolt very quickly unless the Communists manage to gain dictatorial power.

Oh my, were to start. The earliest example of known working communism was 1415 to 1436 in Bohemia - the Husites, early protestants. They withstood and defeated 5 crusades sent against them until they eventually got defeated. There was no dictatorship, the commune was self organized, the military very well run. Everyone contributed to his ability, everyone's needs were met. There were some examples with Vikings and even earlier in other places, but not documented. You are just ignorant of those, only knowing very recent history and only from US perspective.

communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others

Your attempts to distinguish between Socialism and Communism are silly — Socialism is nothing but "Communism-lite". Says so in "Das Kapital"...

Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living.

No, they aren't — their apartments and cars are smaller, and everything (that is not subsidized) is more expensive. And what good they do have, is despite their Socialism, not thanks to it.

You can try to talk to many of the socialist democratic parties throughout Europe. Socialism is quite different from communism, as it rewards contribution. That is a major issue. It simply requires everyone to pitch in and the profits to be shared based on contribution. So it does not clash with free trade, private property, etc. There is some redistributon, aimed at social benefits, but US has taxes too. It just uses them very badly.

As for the standard of living, if you are in the bottom 50%, you will be so much better off in Europe than in US it is almost ridiculous how big the difference is. If you are a child born in the bottom 50% in EU, you got a chance on decent life, any life even the very top, in US you can just dream about it. Your chance is so small as to border on none.

The rest of your comments are similarly misinformed.

Shkolota, my knowledge of history and politics far exceeds yours — and even that of your Kremlin handlers :-)

This is so funny. I am from EU, live in US last 15 years. I've studied 3 view points on history and politics (US, EU, RU), but I've never been to Russia, spent my adult life in US. Hard to imagine how people can even debate with you, when every opinion distinct from yours has to be from agent of Kremlin :) Paranoid much?

Re:First to say it

[TFAFalcon]

From what I've experienced, capitalism is about as likely to take away human rights and material wealth as communism. My country was doing OK under communism. Most people were happy, they had steady jobs, owned their homes, had free healthcare and education. Since we switched to capitalism not much has improved, while many things have gone and are continuing to go down-hill. And 90% of the people now have less wealth than they did under communism.

Re:First to say it

[Opportunist]

South Americas, Africa, but the really juicy parts of US diplomacy are in the Middle East and Afghanistan. And I'm not talking about the recent blunder where you tried to recover from the harebrained strategy of the 1980s, which is btw something that would piss off everyone, not just Ozzy. I mean, think about it, you and your people believe in your cause, in comes Mr. Big who tells you that hey, you're cool guys, I have a place where you can go and fight for your cause, and he even moves you there and arms you and whatnot. And you go ahead and tell your people that the big day has come and that you'll all fight side by side with your new, shiny ally Mr. Big against the big bad invaders of your lands. Only to eventually find out that Mr. Big neither gives a shit about you or your cause or even that country, he just wanted to get one over that bastard, and now suddenly he even seems to get all buddy-buddy with that asshole!

Would you maybe feel a LITTLE bit cheated?

And it's hardly the only time the US acted like this.

Re:First to say it

[aaaaaaargh!]

Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy,

You're kidding, right? We're talking about the Pinochet regime, with American-trained death squads, extensive torture, people 'disappearing' etc. Oh wait a minute, I get it ... you're just some random asshat troll.

Re:First to say it

[Talderas]

Oh, so the country that attacked us and got its head handed to it as a result is upset with us — and that's your argument to support the notion of our being inherently evil somehow?

There's a credible argument to be made that the US forced Japan to attack it. We didn't utter a peep as Japan conquested about Asia. Nothing about Korea. Nothing about Manchuria. Nothing when they invaded China. When Japan invaded the European colonies in Indochina suddenly we got a still back. We issued an embargo. Japan offered a status quo ante-bellum prior to the Indochina war, meaning they would withdraw from Indochina and hand it back to the Europeans. We rejected it and demanded they gave up their conquests. That might have just been China, or maybe China and Manchuria. Hell it might have included Korea. We never elaborated it didn't matter because no country would have ever accepted those terms. They were untenable from the start because we never protested the earliest Japanese conquests.

So Japan was left in a very tough position. Give up the territories that was providing raw materials and markets for its economy. Give up the territory that was providing a buffer between her and Russia. Give up on any notions or belief of becoming an independent great power and instead forever remaining subserviant to the west. No self respecting country would have accepted those terms. The United States was demanding too much of Japan so Japan took the only reasonable course open to her and struck the US before the US struck her.

Unlike the European theater, the Pacific theater was not inevitable. Hitler was a meglomanic. Conflict between him and France, Great Britain, or Russia was a matter of time and not a matter of when. Japan did not have the same issues and we had plenty of ways to avoid the conflict but they were not taken prior to the US deciding to shut the door on peace entirely.

Re:First to say it

[Talderas]

Commodore Perry's black ships happened in the 19th century, almost a century prior to WW2. What Commodore Perry did was manage to kickstart the Meiji restoration and the modernization of Japan. It also certainly built the foundation for the Japanese resolve to not be technologically inferior to the western nations. The American "empire game" in the Pacific was basically Hawaii and Guam, which were of no threat and no interest to the Japanese. It was only our relationship with the Phillipines and our stationing of forces there that caused any potential tensions with Japan.

Japan never wanted war with the United States and the only threat the Phillipines posed was that it was in a prime position to interrupt supply lines from the west indies to Japan and vice versa but that only mattered if war came. War with Japan was pretty much avoidable up until we rejected the status quo antebellum Japan offered after they invaded Indochina. We rejected that and any opportunity to avoid war after issuing terms no respectable nation could accept.

Re:First to say it

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.

Some would argue that it was never attempted in earnest, as the means of production were never owned by the people (which is by definition a requirement of communism).

Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?

Ignoring the fact that Cuba did better under Castro than they did under America's golden boy Batista.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Re:First to say it

[TangoMargarine]

Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities? Cared for your allies?

The U.S. wasn't officially allied with anyone. Up through WWI the U.S. had a fairly consistent policy of neutrality in European wars. If the U.S. intervened in every European war, it would've been bled dry(er) a long time before. If you can show me an official document the U.S. signed with any European powers pledging military aid in war before the Atlantic Charter (Aug 1941) I'm all ears.

And as the GP implied, Lend-Lease was March 1941. It might be the common viewpoint to say that WWII was a thing where it was "obviously" right to join the Allies and "obviously" known that Germany was doing all sorts of evil things, but there was plenty of uncertainty at the time. We now rest comfortably in our armchairs with 20/20 hindsight. I suppose you think us going in and finding those WMDs in Iraq was justified, too? After all, we "knew" they had them!

Re:First to say it

[Rakarra]

Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?

Holy SHIT, I can't believe you would try to spin this positively. My God, this thread is a gold mine for hilarity.

Re:First to say it

[Opportunist]

Your mistake (as well as that of most people) is that you want a "humane" war. No civilian casualties, minimal damage, all that shit. Forget it. Never worked. Never will.

There is one, and only one, kind of humane warfare: Making it a short war. And that's what the US did right at the beginning of the Iraq war. Hit with force, move in, cover ground and end that shit quickly. Hence the quite omnipresent support of the whole effort.

What did not work out too well was the aftermath. The occupation. And while the US may not see it that way, that's how it is regarded. Imagine the tables were turned, how'd you feel? Imagine you're ruled by some dictatorship, in comes someone who you may even like (as far as it's possible to like countries) and shoves that dictator off the throne. But then they stay and act as if they run your country now. How'd you feel? Maybe a little bit less thankful with every day passing.

And, bluntly, you went there for the oil. Yeah, it's nice to say for democracy and liberty and whatnot, but at the end of the day, it's the oil. I mean, be honest, there's far worse dictatorships around the globe, some of them close to developing a nuke (or even claiming to have one already) and nobody gives a shit. C'mon, at least be honest. I don't blame you, I mean, it's quite understandable to take what you need with force if you can, but at least call a spade a spade and don't try to bullshit people into thinking you did it to export democracy. If anything, if the US is exporting democracy currently, it's because it has no use for it anymore at home.

Re:First to say it

[Opportunist]

It's not your fault. If you could do any better, you'd probably start with it at home.

You Forgot One

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States.

Re:You Forgot One

[WillAffleckUW]

Not so much for logistics and money. Unless you count captured equipment we "lent" to those countries.

Re:You Forgot One

[znrt]

is there any difference? this is iS, formerly known as syrian freedom fighters, remember? the pattern is old, already.

TFA is bullshit, it is only sort of correct about the 30-year war ... which has been already going on for 15. it's all the same war, the war US needs to keep its declining influence. 15 more til it rots, she prophesies? could be. anyway that's a lot of mayhem still to unleash ...

but it just could be another instance of the "magical three months syndrome". remember, when every month some random moron from defense projected that the current kill and destroy operation would be resolved in the next three months? well, three months have passed many many times and we're still on the same spot. it's probably because there is no intention whatsoever to move away from that spot.

Re:You Forgot One

[peragrin]

No the problem is the USA is targeted the wrong target. You can't stop ISIS with bombs. You can't stop Al queada with bombs.

You can't stop them with guns or bullets. you can't kill them all.

It is like Afgahanistan in the 1980's the CIA got the Afghan's to fight the Soviets. then the USA left which let an entire generation become jihadists. You are fighting Ideas. You are trying to prevent the Sunni- Shitte war that has been brewing for Centuries.

The USA needs to step up and develop alternative energy sources so we don't need middle east oil and let them kill each other. Once the Middle east begins to use up their oil reserves(and that is many decades away) the fighting will stop. Actually it will get far worse for a while, but it will eventually stop.

However once the USA and Europe doesn't need their oil anymore they will stop caring and let the idiots slaughter each other.(any group fighting over religion is automatically an idiot)

Re:You Forgot One

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't stop them with guns or bullets. you can't kill them all.

Wrong. We have the ability to eliminate absolutely every living thing in the middle east fairly easily. The few that are here would be easily dealt with after that. Libcucks are the only reason this is still going on.

Re:You Forgot One

[Savage-Rabbit]

No the problem is the USA is targeted the wrong target. You can't stop ISIS with bombs. You can't stop Al queada with bombs.

You can't stop them with guns or bullets. you can't kill them all.

It is like Afgahanistan in the 1980's the CIA got the Afghan's to fight the Soviets. then the USA left which let an entire generation become jihadists. You are fighting Ideas. You are trying to prevent the Sunni- Shitte war that has been brewing for Centuries.

The USA needs to step up and develop alternative energy sources so we don't need middle east oil and let them kill each other. Once the Middle east begins to use up their oil reserves(and that is many decades away) the fighting will stop. Actually it will get far worse for a while, but it will eventually stop.

However once the USA and Europe doesn't need their oil anymore they will stop caring and let the idiots slaughter each other.(any group fighting over religion is automatically an idiot)

True enough, but what you can do is use airpower to knock out every tank, armored car, APC, artillery piece, truck and jeep that ISIS has destory their infrastrucutre and with it their economy. Then equip their enemies with heavy weapons train them in tactics likely to work against an ISIS whose arsenal has been reduced to AK-47s, SAWs, RPGs and mortars. With the way ISIS has been behaving I'm pretty sure the locals people in places like Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan can be relied upon to grab these ISIS assholes wherever they can be found the moment they get the chance to do so and kill them in way's that would make you regurgetate your dinner if you witnessed it. Pretty much everybody from Washington through the capitals of Europe, Amman, Damascus, Erbil and Baghdad to Teheran hates these assholes worse than the black plague.

Re:You Forgot One

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, that's exactly what created ISIS, and every other renegade group that hates the US. Why would the exact same tactic that has never worked in 60 years suddenly work now?

Re:You Forgot One

[blue9steel]

You can't kill them all.

Sure we could, it would be pretty straightforward to use a combination of Nuclear weapons and Chemical agents to depopulate the entire area and then follow up with drones to catch any remnants. It wouldn't be ethical and we wouldn't do something like that, but don't mistake won't for can't.

Re:You Forgot One

[pkinetics]

Because it will work this time!

Insanity, do the same things over and over and over again, and expecting different results.

The other point is: Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

Unfortunately, those decision makers are taking lives and resources away to do it, guns vs butter.

And the on the other hand, the not doing of anything will only lead to big mess. We can't unmake the disaster, so now we must figure out how to minimize the danger of it.

Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Re:You Forgot One

[aralin]

You assume the rest of the world would sit idly by as you did that. It would not. The only thing you would reach is that every single nation would overnight become the best friend with Russia and China. The next day, interesting things would start to happen in North America.

Re:You Forgot One

[sjames]

Been there, done that. Where do you think all those crazy Middle Easterners got all their weapons in the first place?

Re: You Forgot One

[HornWumpus]

Everybody wants to fight on the other guys soil. Guess who gets to decide? It isn't you.

BTW we will own the middle easts children via 18 inch dish. Osama Ben Ladens surviving grandchildren (great grandchildren in any case) will be emos and act in ways that would make a SanFrancisco freak blush. They will replace the Japanese as the worlds worst dancers.

Re:You Forgot One

[rtb61]

The US military industrial complex created them, the US military industrial complex fights them and the US military industrial complex keeps them going. It has spent years goading Russia to try and kick over the cold war again and is now poking China as well. The US military industrial complex runs around the war trying to put out fires with a flame thrower and then blaming everyone else when they fail at it.

Re:You Forgot One

[cavreader]

Why would Russia and China object to the US pulling out the big guns and killing a large portion of people who are causing all the problems? The war hurts their interests more than it hurts US interests. And the world does sit idly by and watch the mayhem while criticizing the US actions or inactions.

Re:You Forgot One

[aralin]

Russia and China would very likely not object to it. Israel would very likely object to being wiped with the rest of Muslim world. Europe would object to the worst genocide in planet's history. The rest of the would would see US using Nuclear weapons at will and rise up in arms. The only alternative to US nuclear arsenal is Russia and China, so the rest of the world would turn toward them. They would immediately cease the opportunity, build a world coalition against US. Half of US citizens would raise in arms against its own government as well. In either case, whatever would the day after look like in North America, it would be interesting.

Re:You Forgot One

[MildlyTangy]

You can't stop them with guns or bullets. you can't kill them all.

That's why we invented nuclear weapons. I suggest a 50 megaton air-burst over Mecca during the Hajj as a start.

Dont be ridiculous. You can easily kill everyone with 10 megatons.

Still wont fix the problem though.

Re:You Forgot One

[gtall]

What will probably sink ISIS in terms of local support is that age old plague which has leveled empires everywhere, a scourge so horrible that people are willing to die to prevent it: taxes. There's an article on CNN's alleged news site explaining how ISIS is taxing the people in the territory they control. Religion is a powerful draw, but it is nothing compared to money. ISIS is more or less a criminal organization, it was started by criminals and run by criminals. It is what they know, sort of an Italian Mafia without the fetching rituals.

Re:You Forgot One

[gtall]

Hey, you are right. Russia had every reason to steal part of Georgia. And Crimea, they were told to that by the U.S. military industrial complex, they've long been known to take orders from it. Ukraine? Same story, there's no history. And Taiwan? The U.S. m.i.c. moved Chaing there after the war just to give China a foil. The S. China Sea? China has long been taking orders direct from the U.S. to steal it. Islamo-Fascism? Why that's just another CIA plot, nothing home grown about it. Gee, now that I get to look at the world through your eyes, there's just nothing for which the U.S. is not responsible.

Re:You Forgot One

[cHALiTO]

Bingo.

Re:You Forgot One

[jonhorvath]

You would get a little nutty if you were regularly fighting a wars for almost 100 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Re:You Forgot One

[deathcloset]

Fighting fire with fire is called a "controlled burn".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

It's impractical to douse a wildfire with water. You need to stop it expanding and spreading and let it burn itself out.

You don't put out wildfires, you merely stop them from expanding and cut off their fuel supply.

Now, once the main fire is out, then you cruise around dousing little hot-spots with water and such.

This is all just a devil's-advocate analogy as a punching-bag counter-point for your valid points. I do this to illustrate not the failings of your assertions, but merely because your Insightful post is obviously one-sided.

Re: You Forgot One

[Rakarra]

Everybody wants to fight on the other guys soil. Guess who gets to decide? It isn't you.

Oh, and the rest of the world doesn't get a say in this? Think Russia will idly sit by? The EU?
Turning the sand to glass in the Middle East will mean pretty much every other region in the world will declare war most likely, incredibly harsh sanctions at the very minimum. I know the US likes to think it's uber-independent and all, but I don't think you're prepared for the absolute pariah the USA would become.

Re:You Forgot One

[Rakarra]

Actually, God is against killing too.

Untrue, the god of Abraham is against unjustified murder. If it's justifiable, it's totally fine, and God certainly ordered the wiping out of several cultures.

Re:You Forgot One

[Rakarra]

Except Russia and China hate most of the middle east far more than Americans do. We could easily come to an agreement with both of them.

But what do they hate more than that? The USA getting more influence, or at least enough dick-swinging ability so that there wouldn't be serious repercussions to wiping out a section of the map.

Re: You Forgot One

[HornWumpus]

How many divisions does the pope have?

Re: You Forgot One

[Rakarra]

Oh, so the US is conquering the WHOLE world now? It can't even maintain control over one country.

Re: You Forgot One

[HornWumpus]

Never answer false premises, it's a complete waste of time.

Re:You Forgot One

[dcw3]

It is like Afgahanistan in the 1980's the CIA got the Afghan's to fight the Soviets. then the USA left which let an entire generation become jihadists.

While the CIA supported and armed them, it wasn't because they were coerced into it. You've heard of Charlie Wilson's war, right? It wasn't just a movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Re:You Forgot One

[cavreader]

After herding all the jihadists and would be jihadists into their self proclaimed caliphate would be the perfect time for a limited yield tactical nuke or two. Reduce border security and take the time to allow as many jihadists as possible to flock towards their caliphate. Limit offensive military actions and threats to instill some calm into the situation and let the jihadists emerge from their holes to start terrorizing any civilians still wandering around while also making note of the busiest mosques and recruiting centers. Utilize extensive satellite and drone surveillance to identify the area with the most jihadists per square foot and fire away. The newer nukes are a lot cleaner then those dropped on Japan and the Nevada desert so any fall out should dissipate in a relatively short time span but the point would have been made. And you vastly over estimate the worlds reaction to an action like this. There will be a lot of complaining and vitriol flying around but there will also be a lot of people who secretly and quietly approve of the action to remove the current jihadists and give a warning for those planning any future attempts to violently impose an extremist religion. Disclaimer: I do not advocate or approve of this scenario but it is where the world is currently heading. People are more concerned with winning political arguments then actually solving any problems. In their gusto to win their arguments facts become optional and dishonesty runs amok while misinformation rules the day all in the name of winning the argument. We have people ignoring viscous and barbaric actions while at the same time berating the only people capable of putting an end to escalating violence. We have another group who would have no problem with the scenario described above. The loudest contributors to the continuing back slide into the 7th century complain and blame but never offer up any solutions to the problems we face today. It's not enough to say that the US is responsible for all the troubles the world faces. Blaming the US or the west for all the problems is the same thing as supporting ISIS and all the other terror groups around the world. The suicide bombers, knife wielders, and trigger pullers are absolved of any guilt for their actions because according to the twitterized masses every bad thing that happens is blamed on the US and the west.

Re:You Forgot One

[Sciath]

Seriously? Tehran actively supports the Shiite side in that religious war. That is a well known national security fact. You also have a very naïve notion about what can be done with air power in taking out armored ground forces. You're talking about a massive air campaign using up millions in aircraft, ammunition, guided rickets, cruise missiles, fuel, etc. It's very easy for a ground force to spread out its units so that each tank, guided missile platform, armored vehicle would require its own separate targeting. That would also include targeting of most of their modified half ton trucks they've retrofitting with 50 caliber guns. The fact of the matter is, the forces they have now is a direct result of the U.S. leaving all that equipment behind in the (unrealistic) hope the Iraqis would have the guts to defend what we set up for them. They didn't. Why? Because when you hand someone something they haven't really earned there is little appreciation for what they had. The Iraqis walked away from the force we left them. The whole period of time we spent supplying them with armor and training was a failed plan from the get go. Why? Because their religious war runs so deep that even their own troops had more allegiance to their religion than civil government. They have NO appreciation for what they've never had. Civil, strong, democratic civil government. You won't defend what you don't understand. They've proved that many times over. Democracy is NOT appropriate everywhere. A population has to understand such things, deeply appreciate such a concept, are willing to die for it, and belief in it overrides any competing ideology. That's simply not the case over there. We should've let them to their own devices years ago and they'd still be fighting with swords and single shot rifles. And ISIS would have very little military power as a result. In fact the whole thing started when the Reagan administration armed the jihadists just to fight of the russian invasion. But everywhere we stick our nose into we end up making things worse in the long run. Just like a jihadist recent said in an interview, they don't care about democracy, about diversity, about compassion and civil rights. They only care about establishing their own retrograde Islamic caliphate with strict Islam law. When asked about the fact that many people don't want to live under such conditions the response was, "who are they, why haven't they left." Completely ignoring the fact that thousands have left. I say let them form what ever form of government they want. People will eventually leave or form their own committed revolution to get rid of them. It will be their blood spilt and their money spent. It is the price of revolution. Only then will they have an appreciation for democratic rule.

Re:You Forgot One

[aralin]

You know what is in my mind the most telling difference between Russians and Americans? Every single one of my American friends has at one point or another said something to the tune: "Let's nuke them!" in one situation or the other. I've not heard a talk like that from any of the Russians I know. Might be just my own experience, but I have plenty enough friends on both sides for it to count for something.

Re:You Forgot One

[cavreader]

You may not have heard this from your friends but a couple months ago a Russian politician all but threatened to reduce the US to a wasteland of radioactive ash over the conflict in the Ukraine. Russia has stepped up their efforts to modernize their nuclear weapons and testing new missile delivery systems. Nuclear weapons have prevented a large scale war between the global powers like WW2. Without the nuclear deterrent the world would be very different today. However, the nuclear deterrent is on it's way to becoming obsolete due to advances in anti-missile capabilities. As these defense systems advance the threat of someone launching a nuclear missile is reduced. All the current nuclear powers have a potent defense against anyone invading their country. The best examples would be India,Pakistan, and Israel. The chances of the US, China, and Russia invading one another is extremely remote. Removing or reducing the nuclear deterrent would introduce wide scale instability and make the possibility of large scale warfare much greater. The skirmishes happening across the world today are nothing compared to the US, Russia, or China unleashing their true non-nuclear power. The US military has been fighting their battles with one hand tied behind their back with an embedded JAG officer advising them on whether or not to pull the trigger. As natural resources continue to dwindle in the future the possibility all out war will grow. Not in our lifetime but not to far in the future either.

Re:You Forgot One

[aralin]

Actually I have heard that. Politicians say stuff, but it is only if people find the general idea acceptable and repeat it themselves when the politician gets a license to act.

As for the particular case, you mentioned, it was actually in response to US actions. First US government announced that they will start modernizing all Nuclear weapons, the Russian's announced the same a week later in response. The mention of Nuclear weapons on Russian side, at least the one I noticed, was in response to growing number of articles and statements advocating conventional war against Russia. They were simply reminding people that Russia is in fact one of the Nuclear powers and it is a Nuclear War that is at stake when attacking Russia. Seemed like a deterrent to me, but there might have been different statement I did not notice.

The anti-missile shield is nowhere close to functional. It might stop single missile by a rogue nation, maybe, but Russian ICBMs are a very different beast. There is no chance now or in reasonably close future this will be a problem. But there were treaties between Russia and US that expressly forbid development and deployment of this technology. Chief among them the one that prevented Cuban Missile Crisis. (Never understood, why that one was not called a Turkey Missile Crisis, since it started by US deploying Nuclear Warheads in Turkey). Anyway.

The chance of US invading Russia is growing though. They do all the steps that seem necessary for it. They got the 15 aircraft carries that can be used as mobile bases for air strikes. They secured full control over the Baltic Sea (to strike at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg) and they tried through converting Ukraine and Georgia to secure full control over the Black Sea to get striking distance on Moscow. That was temporarily unsuccessful due to the Crimea issue. On top of this you got the shield project. So the moment the shield would be actually working, they might be ready for strike. Also, once you remove Russia's conventional means of defense, you leave them with ONLY the nuclear option. You could argue that with strictly conventional attack Russia might have a problem of using them first. It is a hard choice at that point. Do you let all your people die or do you try to defend conventionally and hope at least some will survive and rebuild... forcing this moral dilemma could be a way to win such strike. Despite what everyone keeps repeating about Putin, he has two soft spots. He is very nationalistic and proud of his people and he is conservative pro-life politician. I don't think he would have it in him to press the red button and start Nuclear War. So he does his very best so he would never get into a situation where he would have to make that impossible choice.

Re:You Forgot One

[rtb61]

You do realise the difference between plants and people and how people families might take strong offence to the idea of 'back burning' family members. That is the counter analogy. Plants do not become rebel forces when forced to do so due to abuse.

Re:You Forgot One

[cavreader]

The anti-missile technology is advancing more than you think. It's the radar and computational capabilities that are key to a successful intercept and there is a lot of well funded R&D to improve in these two areas.The systems in Israel are a perfect test bed. Israel employs two separate missile defense systems. The Iron dome for relatively short range missiles and the Patriot system missiles for long range interception. And yes, an impenetrable shield is something that may happen in the future but does not exist today.

Re:You Forgot One

[aralin]

It works pretty well on garden variety missiles. But Russian's got something quite different. Those things can deploy decoys, multiple warheads, and they fly at speeds that are extremely hard to intercept, From what I know, we are still pretty far off, thankfully. Once some general decides the shield is good enough, than nothing can save us.

Re:You Forgot One

[cavreader]

I know Russia, and everyone else, have missiles with penetration aides and multiple nuclear warheads per ICBM and any air defense against these weapons is damn near impossible, especially when they reach their terminal attack stage. But these missiles are vulnerable in their boost stage. That's why Russia objects to missile defense systems deployed near their borders.

Re:You Forgot One

[Joey Vegetables]

Not half. A tiny, tiny minority. However, I would be honored to be among that minority. There would be no doubt left at that point that anything that hurt the rogue U.S. regime would help the U.S. people (whom I have sworn an oath to defend against any enemy, foreign OR DOMESTIC) as well as the people of the entire world, and I will consider it an honor, if need be, to give my life in service of that oath. BTW, I also will happily give my life, if need be, to protect my Muslim neighbors or innocent Muslims elsewhere, even though I do not share their faith, culture, or heritage. They are good, peaceable, hospitable neighbors; they have done nothing to wrong me, and our disagreement is not sufficient reason for me to be able to justify taking their lives, whether directly, or through the same cowardly inaction that doomed so many Jewish people during the middle of the previous century.

LP's comments will sink the 2014 Democrats

[turkeydance]

but, they will clear the way for "i told you so" Hillary in 2016. Washington (AFP) - Former Pentagon chief Leon Panetta has denounced the White House... http://news.yahoo.com/obama-te...

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[lister king of smeg]

Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

What has happened to Slashdot?

[jd.schmidt]

Is this a technology site or some kind of political blog. What has happened?

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Ralph Wiggam]

All of the good editors and commentors moved to better sites. This is what's left.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any story about pot or war ends up on Slashdot. That's what Dice and the editors have done to this site.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

You beat me to it. It's way too political lately.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've looked for these "better sites" and not found them. They didn't go to better sites. They left the editing profession altogether.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Opportunist]

The world is way to political lately. Or rather, it's way too loaded with propaganda. I haven't seen anything even resembling "news" lately. The older ones around here might remember what that was, "news". It was when you got information about stuff happening.

Now, you still hear about what's happening, but not straight. Just like you can't get straight black coffee anymore without someone dumping some kind of syrup in for flavoring, it has become near impossible to get information without the addition of what you should think about it. News has turned into opinion gradually and we're now essentially where opinion is all that's left.

It is actually to a point comical when you can turn on, say, Fox News, watch it for a while, then switch over to RT and see the SAME pictures shown with exactly opposite captions. Here our benevolent soldiers crush the oppression of that other side, and on the other side the evil invasion force assaulted the gallant defense militia that protects the poor innocent civilians. It's really awesome entertainment... well, it could be if it wasn't such an insult to the intellect of the viewer. And if it wasn't real.

It would be a blast as a soap.

The information age is over. The age of lies has started.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[ArcadeMan]

I've also looked for "better sites" and I've found the "blackjack" and "hookers" sites. I'm still looking for the "theme park" sites though.

Re: What has happened to Slashdot?

[93 Escort Wagon]

This kind of comment pops up every time we get an article that is about something less technical than processor architecture design. Slashdot is not a technology news site. It is a news site for nerds. There are politics nerds, biology nerds, and nerds of virtually every other kind.

That's just the kind of drivel I've come to expect from a filthy emacs user!!!

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[I'm New Around Here]

Thank god we still have Ralph Wiggam here. :^P

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[LessThanObvious]

All the same stories are everywhere. I read Slashdot and think "oh, I'm seeing things that won't make the mainstream media" and then the nightly news covers the same security breaches and software vulnerability announcements along with the same political crap. Everything comes off the same news feeds. Each day the cream gets scraped off the top for mass consumption; everything else is too much work for too small a readership payoff.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Ty]

While Slashdot has certainly been influenced by the Reddit-esque meme generation, it certainly remains one of the better places for well-thought commentary on tech. It's weathered pretty well in my opinion.

Hacker News has defended itself pretty well against this so far. I wonder how much more difficult that will become as it grows in popularity.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Ralph Wiggam]

The only reason I came back after a 12 year hiatus is that the IT department at work started blocking all of the popular sites.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[geekoid]

move to reddit. It has far more engaging and thoughtful places to discuss technology.
Seriously.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[sootman]

I was about to point out that this site has always had a two-part subhead: "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." and I would say a 30-year war "matters", but now all I see (on the classic site) is the logo -- no more tagline. So, no fucking idea.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[geekoid]

Clearly you don't go to the tech subreddits.
Far more intellectual discourse. I heard nothing but bad things for years. Finally I went and checked it out.
Whole discussion, informative, no politics, not sudden change in topic.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[c6gunner]

Now, you still hear about what's happening, but not straight.

This has always been the case; the reason you notice it now is:

1. It's gotten a bit more blatant with the advent of the 24-hour-news-cycle.
2. As you grow up you tend to develop a better sense of whether or not someone is trying to manipulate you. Go back and watch some news from the past which you thought was "balanced", and you'll be surprised by how poorly your memory of it stands up to the reality.

Just like you can't get straight black coffee anymore without someone dumping some kind of syrup in for flavoring

That's just weird. My coffee is still as black as ever. Maybe you should stop buying your coffee from the syrup factory?

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[I'm New Around Here]

Hey, I hear you. I left for several years myself. Unfortunately, I forgot the password for my previous account, and had to make a new one. It's actually my third one. Now I keep my password simple.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[lars5]

I just got my account (this one) from 1998 activated yesterday. Contact the Slashdot team, they will most likely help you get your old UID back.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[dryeo]

While loading, slashdot still has Slashdot:news for nerds, stuff that matters as the title of the window. Goes away once loaded though and maybe unnoticeable on other then dial-up or other browsers then SeaMonkey

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[shutdown -p now]

You must be new here.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[NitsujTPU]

I would argue that that's not really what happened. When CmdrTaco left, the tone of /. was possibly more political than it is now. CmdrTaco did a lot to try to bring /. back to its roots, but the users kept on pushing the content in a more political direction. I don't blame CmdrTaco or the mods, though I agree that some more strict moderation would help the situation as it stands.

I would say that it was two factors:
1) Heavy internet use became mainstream.
2) 9/11

On the first point. Slashdot started in the heat of the first dotcom boom. People wanted to know what was going on in tech. The audience was a self-selecting group made up of developers, open-source users and devs, and entrepreneurs. As time went on, more entrepreneurs and people seeking to get rich (think RedHat IPO) came to Slashdot, and diluted the audience. Now, there's nothing wrong with being one of these people, but they're not the sort who are going to post comments that are deeply embedded in an interest in tech.

Fast-forward a little, and you've got quite a few sites that basically coopted Slashdot's model that popped up. K5 was an early one, but you've got reddit.com, digg.com, fark.com, and now the comments section on cnn.com, all the way to college newspapers like the Yale Daily News website. Link aggregation, or simply sticking a comments section on every single thing posted to the internet became mainstream.

Activity like that diluted what you can get out of a purely democratized content model. True, Slashdot has always had moderation, but a lot of the mod activity is from users, and Slashdot has always taken a gentle hand in these matters. If we're to compare to another website, reddit.com is also heavily driven by user-submitted content. It's, despite what the average redditor would claim, primarily a website about politics, atheism, and pictures, with a little science and tech sprinkled in. That said, the truly aggressively-moderated subreddits are the ones that stay on-topic.

The second factor is 9/11. I'd say that things were basically under control prior to that. On 9/11, the attacks were the big news of the day. I couldn't find the reference, but I think that that is still the most actively commented on story of all time. It pulled in a big crowd of people who wanted to discuss the attacks in real-time, and then they stayed. This was an instant dilution of Slashdot's content, and it stayed that way. For years to come, you'd see political commenters who, for the most part, only wanted to discuss politics. If you'd ask them to stay on-topic, they would give you an excuse along the lines of, "More important stuff is going on than science and technology." These people really seemed to want for the world to grind to a halt until they were happy with the political situation. They're still around.

Measure's were taken. CmdrTaco made several posts both requesting community input and suggesting measures and solutions to the problem. Eventually he stepped down.

In short, Slashdot's problem, if you're looking for a site to discuss science and technology, where people are passionate about these matters, is an audience problem. Folks like us are in the minority now. We always have been, but the internet grew, and is no longer a place where "early adopters" congregate. It is very difficult to have a site like what Slashdot was these days, because a self-selecting audience will include a majority of people who aren't all that invested in either science or technology.

Even with heavy moderation, you would have a difficult time curating the site, to be honest. If you look over recent top stories, the question of, "at what point is moderation fair?" would be kind of difficult to answer. Undoubtedly a new space mission makes the cut, right? Okay, what about discussion of the NSA's activities? Given the volume of communication that is performed online, one could make an argument that every story about their activity is relevant, but it's political material. Of course, there are some clear "rejects." The story that we're all commenting on hasn't got anything to do with technology.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[NitsujTPU]

Top story on /r/technology right now: "Unhappy Customer: Comcast told my employer about my complaint, got me fired"

The next 2 have the "politics" tag.

The fourth is about a home CNC mill that can finish (or entirely mill out, who cares?) the lower receiver for an AR-15.

Worth noting is that the last isn't exactly high-tech, because you could have done this with a standard desktop milling machine years ago. (In fact, I'd call this particular mill an extremely poor purchase decision, because you can only make one part on it, and that part costs less to simply purchase). The last one is simply a political move showing that modern technology can make it so easy to produce a "ghost gun" that it's pointless to pass laws banning them.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[MildlyTangy]

Care to give us some tips for these "better sites"? Havent found any yet, but would love to find one thats similar to Old Slashdot.

I miss Old Slashdot.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[MildlyTangy]

Heard of political science, law science, and all that gobblygook? Slashdot is a site for nerds, the type of nerds that power this country. The type that go to work as politicians, and lawyers, it's all a science my friend and this site is geared toward all these types. Business and economics play a huge roll, too.

Also secretly technology trends flow from the military and it's actions.. All the best technology, companies incomes, R&D flows from the military and actions of the military.

Making this news worthy to the real powers that be, the real geeks, the real nerds.

Or are you just a consumer that doesn't get it?

http://www.obamasweapon.com/..

What complete and utter rot. No, seriously. Utter tripe.

"Political Science" ? really?
"Law Science"? really?

People like you are why the word "Science" has completely lost its original meaning and is now effectively worthless as a word to describe what the word 'Science" really meant.

This article is not worthy of the Slashdot of old. It is in no way shape or form, "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

I miss Old Slashdot.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[mrxak]

It was inevitable, really. Technology and science has become more and more fodder for political agendas, so technology and science is now political and attracts political comments. From there, you get stories that appeal to those political readers whether they are related to technology and science at all.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[aliquis]

Yeah. Everyone. Quickly head over to TweakTown!

It's the new best thing ... .. oh wait.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[jma05]

Which better technology sites? Which editors are you referring to?

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[OverlordQ]

You must be new here. I remember the Bush era /. when nearly every other article was complaining about Bush.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Maow]

The information age is over. The age of lies has started.

Been saying it myself for a while:

The "Information Age" has become the age of mis-information and dis-information.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[aliquis]

TweakTown (http://www.tweaktown.com) even already have that sexy blog format which is so new and exciting in Slashdot beta!

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Opportunist]

I wish I could, but the old fashioned little corner coffee shops got shut down by the big players. Another analogy... know a place where I can still get my news without flavoring added?

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[gl4ss]

it's not really news when in ~600km circle from this 30 year war there has been constant violent occupation, outright war or guerilla war going on for about the past 60 years...

as such it kind of matters, but not any more than it mattered 8 years ago or whatever.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[OneSmartFellow]

I generally agree with the sentiment above. Although I think I would change the emphasis from knowledge to perspective. Sometimes the issues at hand are less about facts and more about thinking clearly about the facts, and what they really imply.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[I'm New Around Here]

Nah. I 've used this one for a while now. Not a big deal. The account names were good ones, but it isn't a big deal to have a mid-six-digits uid from around 2002.

Besides, once it switches to Beta only, I think most of us posters will go away for good.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Attila Dimedici]

You can't...and you never could. The difference is that once upon a time, you only had one choice of flavoring in your news, so everyone thought that was just what news tasted like.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Ralph Wiggam]

They are definitely not talking about /r/technology. That subreddit is only useful if you want to know what Kim Dotcom had for lunch yesterday.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Opportunist]

I think the magnitude changed. Back when Hitler declared that "since 5:45 we're shooting back at them", at least he "only" lied right at the start of the assault at Poland.

Today truth met an untimely end long, long before the first shot was fired in Ukraine.

Re:What has happened to Slashdot?

[Opportunist]

Actually there was a time, at least in my country, when the news did deserve that name. We have a network here that broadcasts the news of 20/30/40/50 years ago (interesting stuff, I may add. It's sometimes quite a bit of an eye opener), and the further back the news are, the more accurate they are. One should expect accuracy to increase with better technology.

Of course there were commentary and opinion back then, too. But they were far better marked as such.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[WarJolt]

authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

Is that like a cryto-currency that's going to finally replace USD?

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Opportunist]

Yeah, and much like any other crypto-currency the average person won't even know how to get it.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[dugancent]

We need less fiat currency, not more.

Well...

[jamstar7]

It's easy for him to bash the current Regime, especially that crack about pushing harder to keep troops in Iraq. They wanted us GONE. Hell, WE wanted us GONE.

Awful damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Where was HE when the shit was getting ready to pile up?

Re:Well...

[JeffAtl]

We learned from first world war that leaving a vacuum in defeated countries and making them fend for themselves is a recipe for disaster.

Re:Well...

[amiga3D]

I think we should stay gone. This thing has been building for decades. It's going to have to play itself out and the longer it takes for it to happen the worse it will be.

Re:Well...

[multimediavt]

It's easy for him to bash the current Regime, especially that crack about pushing harder to keep troops in Iraq. They wanted us GONE. Hell, WE wanted us GONE.

Yep, and they conveniently leave out that W signed the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in 2008 that got us out, including the time table for doing so.

Awful damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Where was HE when the shit was getting ready to pile up?

Apparently, he was writing a book... because at no time during either of his positions under the Obama administration did I ever hear him say one word about "we must leave troops in Iraq" or anything even close to that. Maybe someone can find a quote or video for me, but this sounds a lot like pandering to a base constituency to buy his book given how popular Obama bashing is these days.

Re:Well...

[rogoshen1]

are you comparing the Germans, who in 1918 were the most industrious, most scientifically advanced, and socially cohesive people on the planet, to modern Arabs?

Re:Well...

[Slim_Jack]

Actually it looks like we _didn't_ learn it.

Re:Well...

[geekoid]

Post wwI Germany, yes.

Re:Well...

[Required Snark]

Your comment is irrelevant and ignorant. It's not about the economic/political/Western Europe nature of the state, it's about what happens in a power vacuum when central authority goes away.

And if you want some irrelevant historical trash talk, when the Germans were filthy tribesmen squatting in the forest in Europe, the Arabs had one of the most advanced civilizations on the planet.

How does it feel when the racist implication is on the other side?

Re:Well...

[mjwx]

We learned from first world war that leaving a vacuum in defeated countries and making them fend for themselves is a recipe for disaster.

We didn't leave a power vacuum in post WWI Germany, what we did was beat them, kick them whilst they were down and then push their faces into the dirt. After WWI Germany transitioned from an imperial government to a representative government. The Weimar Republic failed, not because they were a weak government but because they stuck by the lopsided terms of the Treaty of Versailles which bankrupted Germany and caused high inflation. The Nazi's succeeded because they ignored the treaty of Versailles and gave the German people someone else to blame for their problems (the Jews and Bolsheviks). Even Churchill said the treaty of Versailles led directly to WWII (and he was entitled to his "told you so" moment as he opposed the treaty as military officer at the end of WWI).

The post Iraq and post WWI situations couldn't be more different.

Re:Well...

[mjwx]

Post wwI Germany, yes.

You and the GGP couldn't be more wrong in that comparison.

The end of WWI left Germany with a functioning representative government. It's their economy we kept fucking after the war. It took the Nazi's 15 years to topple the Weimar republic after many failures (most famous of which was the beer hall push). Eventually the terms placed on the Germans by the treaty of Versailles caused so much economic damage that the Nazi's were able to get popular support.

We _DID_ learn that lesson, which is why post WWII Germany and Japan became economic powerhouses.

The lessons the US did not learn were the ones taught in Vietnam. "Don't go fucking around with the internal politics of nations that dont want you to" as well as "Invade and we will fight you".

Re:Well...

[Hognoxious]

the beer hall push

What was that, a game of Rugby?

Re:Well...

[NeutronCowboy]

His duty is to the president, not the public. I have a lot of respect for him that he gave the president his opinion, the president disagreed with him, and he kept his mouth shut in public. I also have a lot of respect for him that he isn't just bashing Obama, but merely strongly disagreeing with him on some decisions the president made. On others, he is actually openly agreeing with him (see his position on "Enhanced Interrogation") - or at least, showing far more agreement than a standard republican would.

Yeah, Panetta was a republican, through and through. He was a security hawk, and never made any bones about it. At the same time, he fully supported the president while he was in office. Just for that, he deserves respect.

Re:Well...

[dcw3]

Where was he?...really? Do you know anything about him? He's pretty well respected by both D's and R's.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[amiga3D]

Reagan was a moderate Republican. People don't remember those much because just like the moderate Democrat they're pretty much extinct. Everything is extremism now.

Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[bazmail]

God damn it. Why the fuck did the US invade Iraq in 2003?. Hussein was a madman but he kept a lid on things.

BTW I'm not American so my kids aren't going to be fighting in Iraq, its the US young service men and women I feel sorry for.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

your kids are going to be fighting at home if the western world doesn't contain the fight.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[bazmail]

Why not? They let it go every time North Korean leaders said it, every time Hugo Chavez from Venezuela said it.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[bazmail]

Maybe so. But I have faith in you. Go get 'em tiger.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Boronx]

Bullshit and you know it.

Re: Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

Those other guys didn't threaten to open an oil bourse denominated in Euros, or, more succinctly, "anything but the USD".

We will tolerate a lot, but threaten the petrodollar hegemony and you're done.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil.

Saddam decided he didn't like the oil deals the Bush family had interests in, and the Bush family decided to eliminate him.

It really does boil down to that. We really did go to war simply to protect private interests of a powerful US political family.

(The long explanation is a bit more complicated, but this is the core of the matter.)

The sick thing about the whole situation we're in right now is that we knew this was going to happen. Everyone knew there would be a power vacuum and that horrible people would rush in to fill it.

Sicker still, there are many that want it this way. There's a lot of money to be made when there is chaos and strife. Lots of weapons to sell. Lots of deals to be made. Lots of oil to claim. Lots of hopeless people to control and exploit. You can't do these things when there are strong, stable, peaceful, secular governments in power.

Be wary of those who clamor for war. Be more wary of the puppetmasters that control the threads of money that make them dance.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[aralin]

Actually that was not the statement that got him killed. It was his attempt to trade oil in EUR instead of USD.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
http://www.monetary.org/was-th...

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[LessThanObvious]

Why in 2003? Well.. because it was profitable to military contractors. George W. Bush's people thought they could just conquer Iraq and setup a permanent presence there to protect our interests in the region and since it was on the heels of 9/11 the lies they told the American people and members of congress seemed credible enough to avoid mass opposition. The problem then is that conquering and securing Iraq was much more involved than they thought and then once the dust settled and we got a new president the plan to keep Iraq as a strategic asset to protect American interests fizzed out. Now the war is done and we have a region that is perpetually fucked up. The President and the next president will have no good options. If they stay out they'll say we are failing to secure the region, if we keep pushing around sand hoping for an end to the fighting we'll spend money and lives in an unending battle. There is no win to be won and especially with Obama, whatever he does will be perceived as wrong. As disappointed as I have been by Obama, I had high hopes for him and we have too many here who always believe the wrong thing is whatever Obama decides to do.

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Required Snark]

Personal revenge for the invasion of Kuwait.

As long as Hussein was the US attack dog, going after Iran, then the conservatives backed him 100%. Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, 1983.

Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

So during the Iran/Iraq war, the Regan administration wanted to keep Iraqi oil flowing and engage in a poxy war with Iran. The brutal nature of the Hussein regime was of no consequence, and the reality that Iraq was using chemical weapons was ignored and treated as a public relations issue.

Then Hussein invaded Kuwait and things spun 180 degrees. The conservative/neo-con policy establishment decided that "regime change" in Iraq was the single most important policy goal in the Middle East. Figures like Perle, Wolfowitz and Kristal started the Project for the New American Century in the late 90's. One of their major themes was getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC—Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton—"were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."

Suddenly the chemical weapons that were ignored during the Iraq/Iran war were such an immediate danger that it was critical that the US back the invasion of Iraq. Many of the people who were in or supporters the GW Bush administration when it was backing Hussein were in or supporting the New American Century Project and calling for Hussein's overthrow. (And then there were the fabrications and lies about biological and nuclear weapons. but that's another successfully covered up conspiracy.)

Remember, this was all years before the September 11th attacks. They wanted to get Hussein in real bad way.

Then the World Trade Center attack occurred, and the neo-con propaganda machine whet into high gear claiming that Hussein, not Iraq the country, but their leader, was World Enemy Number One. Then the US invaded the wrong country, and now is in a fight with ISIS, which is arguably worse then Iraq under Hussein. Would ISIS even exist if the US hadn't occupied Iraq? How come no one even asks this question?

There is no rational case for the policy shift from pro-Hussein to anti-Hussein in the US right wing. As a person or as a political figure he did not change very much between the Regan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Bush eras. The only thing that changed is that he went from be an attack dog for the US, to attacking US i

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Teresita]

I wouldn't want to be the one to tell some mother, "I regret that your son is one of four thousand Americans who gave their lives in Iraq because Saddam celebrated when 9-11 happened."

Re:Mission Accomplished? Thanks GWB

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Because Saddam had the audacity to consider not selling oil in US Dollars?

See back in 2000:

http://content.time.com/time/m...

It is all about the economy, as always, and the US likes being the worlds reserve currency. Without it that massive $trillions_of_debt would cause them far more burden than they are currently suffering. Being the reserve currency is the main reason why the US can run such deficits and not go bankrupt.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[amiga3D]

Well that's like saying the Crusades weren't wars.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[bazmail]

So.... like drugs?

Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[drnb]

"Panetta also says that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served. Not pushing the Iraqi government harder to allow a residual US force to remain when troops withdrew in 2011, a deal he says could have been negotiated with more effort "created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it's out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.""

The problem is that Obama's head in stuck in 2003. In 2003 the al qaeda types were not in Iraq. However in 2006 they were and proto-ISIS was defeated by US troops and Sunni forces in the Anbar Awakening. And in 2011 Obama's head was so stuck in the 2003 anti-war rhetoric and politics he could not accept that the situation was now radically different in Iraq and that a residual US force was needed. Al qaeda had migrated out of Afghanistan, they were active and recruiting in Iraq. Obama just wanted to be out of Iraq completely, to be rid of it. The Iraqi's initial resistance to immunity for US forces was the perfect excuse. The Iraqis always start negotiations by refusing immunity and then as the US increases its offer the Iraqis agree to immunity. This happened in previous agreements, saying no to immunity is just a negotiating tactic.

Obama has said that the al qaeda types are the real enemy, the real fight, the guys we should have never taken our focus off of. And yet he is doing exactly this. We didn't go into Afghanistan for the Taliban, we went in after al qaeda. The Taliban merely inserted themselves into this fight by continuing to offer safe haven and protection to al qaeda after 9/11. If the al qaeda types are in Afghanistan that is where the fight is, if in Sudan that is where the fight is, if in Africa that is where the fight is, and if in Iraq that too is where the fight is. The mistakes of 2003 are irrelevant, the politics of 2003 is obsolete, if al qaeda is in Iraq that is where the fight is.

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[Dorianny]

ISIS stated goal is to create a Caliphate, in layman's terms a Islamic State, therefore they are much more similar to the Taliban that created one in Afghanistan than Al Qaeda who's goal was and remains Global Jihad. Their use of tactics developed and commonly associated with Al Qeda terrorists only speaks of their effectiveness rather than a shared goal. As it stands the two groups are not rivals as commonly portrayed in Western media but rather bitter enemies, each believing that the other is impeding their goals.

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[Dorianny]

Stalin and Hitler signed a a non-aggression pact, that's a far cry from being allies as you state. I am not sure how being vicious dictators makes them "brothers" or using brutal tactics makes organizations "kin".

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[drnb]

Stalin and Hitler signed a a non-aggression pact, that's a far cry from being allies as you state.

Are you by chance reading from a pre-1989 Soviet history book with respect to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact? If so you might want to find another history book.
"In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September. Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region). It was only in 1989 that the Soviet authorities admitted the existence of the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...–Ribbentrop_Pact

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[Required Snark]

So it's all about Obama? What about Bush. Talking about anything having to do with Iraq and not framing the situation with the Bush invasion is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic and never saying the word iceberg.

Obama already admitted that there was a US intelligence failure in understanding the fast rise of ISIS. Maybe if the US So Called Intelligence community spent less time spying on Americans, Germans, Australians, British, etc, they might have some time and money left over to look out for trouble in the rest of the world. Of course that might reduce the amount of Homeland Pork, so clearly it's not going to happen.

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[drnb]

So it's all about Obama? What about Bush. Talking about anything having to do with Iraq and not framing the situation with the Bush invasion is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic and never saying the word iceberg.

You are missing the point, not unlike Obama. It is irrelevant whether the 2003 invasions was right or wrong. It is irrelevant as to why the al qaeda types are in Iraq. The only relevant facts are that they are the true enemy as Obama admits and that they are now in Iraq. Ignoring Iraq now is pretty much similar to taking our focus off Afghanistan in 2003, which Obama considers a mistake.

Obama already admitted that there was a US intelligence failure in understanding the fast rise of ISIS.

Actually the failure was in his judgment. We sort of have a repeat of the "Bin Laden to attack US" memo circa 2001. Intelligence agencies were warning the Obama but Obama is dogmatically incapable of taking the actions required by the threat in Iraq.

From the liberal NY Times:
"By late last year, classified American intelligence reports painted an increasingly ominous picture of a growing threat from Sunni extremists in Syria, according to senior intelligence and military officials. Just as worrisome, they said, were reports of deteriorating readiness and morale among troops next door in Iraq. But the reports, they said, generated little attention in a White House consumed with multiple brush fires and reluctant to be drawn back into Iraq. “Some of us were pushing the reporting, but the White House just didn’t pay attention to it,” said a senior American intelligence official. “They were preoccupied with other crises,” the official added. “This just wasn’t a big priority.” "

Re:Obama's head is stuck in 2003 ...

[dcw3]

It's a convenient political ploy to blame the IC when they are unable to defend themselves in any public forum. They can't release classified information to the public, while politicians can simply say..."not my fault due to lack of intelligence". Yeah, right.

Re:Doing it wrong.

[amiga3D]

Congratulations. That's the most awesome piece of twisted logic I have seen in a while.

I don't think he means war for 30 years

[Ken_g6]

I think he's referring to the Thirty Years' War.

The Thirty Years' War was a series of wars in Central Europe between 1618–1648. It was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history, and one of the longest...it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers of Europe....

Re:I don't think he means war for 30 years

[phantomfive]

It's an accurate analogy. The 30 years war was mainly a religious war, as the various country's learned to live with the fact that other people have different religions, and you don't have to kill them for that.

Likewise, in the Middle-East, it may take a while for people to realize you don't have to kill people just because they are Sunni or Druze. We can all get along.

Re:I don't think he means war for 30 years

[Reziac]

I had the same thought. What happens if this spills over into the countries bordering the current hot zone?

I've long since decided it's best to just let them kill each other and get it over with. All that's happened from our efforts to suppress it is that the moment our backs are turned, they resume killing one another with more zeal than before.

Two words

[Pollux]

Pull out.

We've bankrupted our nation to pay for a war that was waged on false pretenses, bankrupted our nation, and corrupted our spirit. What more do we need to pay for a complete failure to accomplish anything other than creating political instability in both nations we invaded?

Re:Two words

[frank_adrian314159]

The country is not even near bankrupt. In fact, Congress could fix the budget deficit, issues with entitlements, and overspending on defense with a few tax and/or spending bills. We do have enough money in this country to deal with this. We just don't have the political will.

I do agree with getting the fuck out of the Middle East, though.

Re:Two words

[VTBlue]

Sovereign country with its own non-convertible floating exchange rate currency can never be bankrupt.

Re:Two words

[Orgasmatron]

Obama already tried that. His decision to pull out without leaving a residual force is why we now have ISIS on the news today.

Are you suggesting that we should invade again, so that we can flee a second time? Or do you think we should pull out-er than we've already pulled out?

P.S. There were no false pretenses and at one point we had won and accomplished something close to political stability. Obama really snatched defeat from the jaws of victory here. I don't know what to make of your other claims.

Plague

[golden age villain]

The bubonic plague was an important factor in the Thirty Years' War. Not exactly a good omen these days...

Re:Plague

[budgenator]

The bubonic plague was an important factor in the Thirty Years' War. Not exactly a good omen these days...

Plague is amatuer stuff, short incubation periods, only 25% fatal but easily treated, and there is even a vacine, unlike other things currently in the news.

Bash Bush in 3...2...1...

[p51d007]

Come on slashdot libs, don't let me down ;)

Obama behaving like a far left zealot ...

[drnb]

Obama is behaving like a politician unable to get his head out of the political dogma of the 2003 left. Unable to see the world has changed and the 2003 dogma obsolete. See http://news.slashdot.org/comme... for an explanation.

Re:Obama behaving like a far left zealot ...

[jwhitener]

Far left... Apparently you've never met the actual 'far left' in the US. Obama is center/center right compared to the last 50-70 years of US politics.

Even his most hated piece of legislation, Obamacare, was a plan drawn up by the conservative heritage foundation....How times have changed that a Heritage Foundation and Republican endorsed health care plan can now be called 'far left'.

I'll grant you that the far right has done an excellent job of moving the Overton Window during the last 30 years though.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[TubeSteak]

Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

Well the Democrats want it to be a gay authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.
So that's a small difference.

Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan was a moderate Republican. People don't remember those much because just like the moderate Democrat they're pretty much extinct. Everything is extremism now.

True Reagan negotiated, compromised and made deals with Democrats. For example he made a compromise with Democrats on the budget, that new spending would be followed by budget cuts. Reagan got his new spending but the Democrats never got around to the budget cuts. And then the Democrats attacked Reagan for a growing deficit. Its things like this that contributed to the modern era of mistrust and extremism. Whether it was a trick by the Democratic leadership or simply a leadership that was ineffective and couldn't fulfill its promises I don't know.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[reboot246]

You almost got that right. Reagan (and later, Bush the elder) agreed to tax increases followed by budget cuts. The taxes went up, but the budget cuts never materialized. Besides, what Washington calls budget "cuts" are not really cuts at all. They're just reductions in the rate of increased spending.

We've lived beyond our means for too long and we're just now beginning to see the results. Hint: It ain't good and it's going to get worse.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[amiga3D]

We use that new math now. 10 minus 12 equals 22.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[lgw]

Life is always better while you're maxing out your credit cards. It's not till the "paying them down" part happens that it sucks. And it's going to suck, but I expect only to whatever extent one has a fixed-in-dollars benefit when the dollar loses, say, half its value (and anything "inflation-adjusted" by an inflation number picked by the government will be nearly as sucky).

Fortunately, there are just a couple bubbles left for us to suffer through: the tuition bubble, and the sovereign debt bubble. Won't be worse than the last couple, I don't think (not that that's anything to look forward to, but no reason to build a bunker).

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike a household, a country can hold debt indefinitely. The only cost is interest. Why do people pay off debt? So they can retire with a nest egg. If a country retires, debt doesn't really matter, now does it?

Deficits only matter because the Rs wanted to slow the recovery so they can say, "Look, Obama is incompetent!" Once the Rs are back in office, they'll be a teenager with daddy's credit card.

You can tell the Rs weren't serious about the debt because they didn't address any meaningful tax increases. If you study the debt numbers vs GDP, if we were to pay it off, it would require both and a lot of time.

Furthermore, you don't want to be completely debt free, you'd crash the bond market and the world economy with it.

But comparing a country's finances to a households is good for low information, low research people. It's easy to point out similarities. Unfortunately the Rs tried to fucking default us like the little terrorists they are.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[HornWumpus]

Had to keep the sunnis and shia in stalemate.

Good idea, why didn't W think of that? Perhaps he did. If he had he couldn't have said it.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[penix1]

If you study the debt numbers vs GDP...

That is a meaningless comparison. Here is why:

http://mythfighter.com/2009/11...

To quote his baseball analogy:

What would you say if I told you the total number of hits the Chicago Cubs made in 2008 is 47% of the total number of runs the Cubs have scored in all of their 100+ year history? You might well say, "Huh? What does one thing have to do with the other? One is hits; the other is runs. One is 100+ years; the other is one year. It's classic apples vs oranges." And you would be right.

Federal "debt" is the net amount of outstanding T-securities created in the history of America. The GDP is the total dollar value of goods and services creating this year. The two are unrelated. The federal government does not use GDP to service its debt. In fact, federal debt service stimulates the economy, so more debt is stimulative.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[lgw]

GDP is quite relevant, because tax revenue has never stay above 19% of GDP for long, no matter the tax scheme tried. If you want to pay down, or even just service, that debt, your limited by GDP. Making the GDP grow is a great answer, but one that IMO the government does best by getting out of the way.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[penix1]

See what you just did? You went from comparing apples to oranges to comparing apples to apples. Tax percentage per year vs GDP (a yearly measurement) is better than the meaningless mufti-century debt to yearly GDP. Add up the GDP in the history of America and compare that to the debt and you would be comparing apples to apples again. Or, compare the debt incurred this year to GDP and again be in balance. Either way, I disagree with your conclusion since the government "staying out" of the economy lead to the great depression being far deeper than it needed to be under Herbert Hoover.

http://www.history.com/topics/...

Hoover undertook various measures designed to stimulate the economy, and a few of the programs he introduced became key components of later relief efforts. However, Hoover's response to the crisis was constrained by his conservative political philosophy. He believed in a limited role for government and worried that excessive federal intervention posed a threat to capitalism and individualism. He felt that assistance should be handled on a local, voluntary basis. Accordingly, Hoover vetoed several bills that would have provided direct relief to struggling Americans. "Prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public Treasury," he explained in his 1930 State of the Union address.

Re: Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[slick7]

You cannot trust any political leadership. They are part and parcel, an extension of the military-industrial-penal-entertainment complex.

Re:Can't trust the Democratic leadership ...

[lgw]

Sure, you can take FDRs approach and extend a short downturn needlessly by 15-20 years. The problems of the 30s were deep, structural, and one can take different lessons from them depending on one's point of view.

But anyhow, saying you can't meaningfully measure debt in terms of years of income is total rubbish. I'm sure you believe the answer is to just give everyone $10000000000000000000 of printed money, making everyone rich for life. Well, it's been tried before.

It's all about how much stuff we collectively produce, not the size of the money supply (though high inflation makes lots of day-to-day stuff a pain in the ass, and is best avoided), but carrying debt can only make things worse.

Early X-Mas Present....

[James-NSC]

...for the Military Industrial Complex?


Just say'n....


in case you need it....

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Tailhook]

Raygun's beliefs would put him solidly a Democrat

Yeah, I miss the days of staunchly pro-life, tax cutting, communist hating Democrats that aggressively expanded military spending during peacetime, appointed moderates like Rehnquist and Scalia, outlawed hiring of illegal immigrants and causally joked about nuking the Soviets on live radio.

Where did those Democrats go, anyhow?

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[ColdWetDog]

How about a Renault currency? Or a Datsun dollar?

Kongbucks anyone?

The Merchant of Venice Beach

[PopeRatzo]

Military contractors are literally rubbing their hands together and preparing to grub money.

We've always been at war with East Asia

[pipedwho]

30 years late, 30 years more. Then another 30 when that's all done.

When the say war, they mean "war".

Re:The Thirty Years War: Europe^WAmerica's Tragedy

[jfdavis668]

Don't worry, the Swedes will step in and solve everything like the last time.

30 years...100 years...it doesn't really matter

[SpankiMonki]

The US has been at war for the last decade+, and what have US citizens faced? Rationing? Higher taxes? A draft? Anyone? Bueller?

Re:Doing it wrong.

[rogoshen1]

(africa has tons of oil.)

His Peace Prize will solve everything

[jfdavis668]

Don't worry, his Nobel Peace Prize will solve everything.

Re:His Peace Prize will solve everything

[blue9steel]

To be fair, I think even he was embarrassed by that.

Re:His Peace Prize will solve everything

[geekoid]

Yeah, some gave him something he didn't ask for, what a bastard.

OTOH, since by every measure things are better, you really don't have anything to bring up.

Re:His Peace Prize will solve everything

[danbert8]

Well he sure didn't decline it...

Re:His Peace Prize will solve everything

[Shortguy881]

On the first point, he should have flat out declined the award. He did nothing to earn it. He could have given a very moving speech on how he was going to earn it over the next four years and at that time, he would accept it. I think his acceptance of the award shows his level of naivety; that his mere presence in the white house would fix the worlds problems.

On the second point, he has kept every policy of Bush except health care and that went smashingly. The increased debt over his two terms, the increased number of military engagements overseas, the totalitarian police state that has formed in the US, the more broken healthcare system, are this mans legacy.

Re:His Peace Prize will solve everything

[Mullen]

You don't decline a Peace Prize. You gain nothing by accepting it but you lose a lot by declining it.

The law of unintended consequences ..

[lippydude]

'Leon Panetta .. says .. "I think we're looking at kind of a 30-year war," says Panetta, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.'

Does Leon Panetta or anyone else in the US administration, not realize that everything they attempt in the Mid-East is bringing about the exact opposite of what they want. Every drone strike is recuiting a whole streetfull of 'terrorists'. It's called the law of unintended consequences.

Underestimating ISIS: An Indictment of Decades of Failed US Policy in the Middle East

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[Boronx]

All meaningless crap.

Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.

Yeah, the US hates dictators. You have to got to be fucking kidding.

"The fault, however, is not in invading in the first place,"

Killing thousands upon thousands of people using a bunch of lies as the justification pretty much dooms the operation to failure from the beginning. Nobody is going to like that, and if nobody likes an invasion, it's going to fail. Also, killing innocent people is wrong all by itself. There's a reason starting wars is considered a criminal act.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[aristotle-dude]

Well that's like saying the Crusades weren't wars.

Right and the slaughter of 100's of millions by the Muslims for centuries preceding the Christian crusades were not crusades? Maybe they weren't, after all the crusades were about taking territory back whereas what the muslims did were about converting others to islam or killing them if they refused. The Caliphate was the ISIL of that day.

Oink, Oink!

[Jahoda]

Nothing the the smell of fascist imperialist pig shit in the morning! You can see the dollar signs in their eyes as the drool of authoritarian greed drips from their corpulent jowls.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[penix1]

Well the Democrats want it to be a gay authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

While the Republicans want it to be a wide stance authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

Not so much of a difference to me...

Sooo... Iraq?

[Gliscameria]

Apparently president Obama blew this whole thing because he didn't leave residual troop in Iraq, but then the articles goes on to this - "emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya". How exactly would residual troops in Iraq deal with this? ISIS/L is coming from Syria and Libya. We made it pretty damn clear we didn't want to get into that mess, now that mess spilled over. You don't win this kind of war. You either let it be or you get Machiavellian and level the whole region.

Re: And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[znrt]

stances on things like abortion and gay marriage are just attitudes to herd popular support into opposing factions. works pretty well given there's enough uneducated population to create the illusion of a tension, an actual clash of ideologies where there is none, really.

politics is about power, and has always been extreme right wing. abortion? gays? death penalty? environment? religion? wellfare? education? power doesn't give a flying fuck about these issues.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[geekoid]

Every time I hear that I think the same thing:
"Hey look, another knucklehead who doesn't actually pay attention to politics but says what ever group think crap he pulls out of his ass so he can feel important."

Obligatory Orwell Quote (1984)

[catchblue22]

For as long as Winston can recall, Oceania has been in a constant state of war – with whom it was at war is of neither importance nor consequence.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[geekoid]

You don't know what that means.

Or...

[DMJC]

More likely 5 years of bad policy followed by bankruptcy. He wasn't right on everything but damn Ron Paul nailed foreign policy. Pull out of the Middle East, engage in trade, and stop trying to throw military force at problems. This can only end in economic collapse and death.

Societal balance

[SimonInOz]

Would you like to enter a sweepstake on how many male soldiers, as opposed to female, die in action? I'm betting 100:1. Or maybe higher. But I bet any that do die will get huge coverage.

It's amazing, is it not, how appalled "society" is by violence against women, but violence against men is not only expected, but actively encouraged?

Our society is way off balance. We assume and expect men to perform all the dirty and dangerous jobs - soldiers, garbage men, oil drilling, you name it - and expect them to die to defend women under all circumstances.

But such responsibilities seem to garner no extra rights at all. Indeed, it looks like the reverse - divorces, for example, generally leave men poor (they usually lose significantly more than half the assets earned by the sweat of their brow - not their partners, and their future income is slashed ... even if the split was initiated by the female, as it usually is), utterly distraught - they usually lose decent access to their children (an event described by most people as "worse punishment than death"), and they are frequently accused of horrible crimes (claiming male on female domestic assault gets you free court representation in many places, so is embarrassingly common, with no vestige of punishment on the lying party should it be demonstrated untrue. Funnily enough, claiming it the other way (somewhat more common according to independent research [Harvard]) gets you nothing).

It seems to me, if we are to have a just and balanced society, either we perform ALL the same roles - nurse, teacher, CEO, soldier - and take the same risks, and are treated actually equally, or we should consider how else to balance things. (I love the "women get paid more than men" meme. Women control the spending of 75%+ of the worlds money - have you ever been to a shopping mall? Have you ever counted the number of shops devoted specifically to "women's stuff"? It's amazing).

One this is pretty certain, though. The mediaeval society seemingly sought by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/wherever the heck these dopey folk want to call themselves this week is not a nice one. Especially for women. You'd think women would be lining up in droves to kill it off - but they don't, that's "men's work". Hmm, funny how that works out when push comes to shove.

So come on women - how about some SheForShe activity? Go fight the bastards and let the males take a break. Leave the kids - single fathers do a much better job in bringing up children anyway - lower rates of drug taking, teenage pregnancy, truancy, check the figures.
After all, that's what "society" seems to expect the fathers to do.

Wrong and wrong

[rasmusbr]

The battle against overly authoritarian shitheads is not a 30-year battle. It is likely an eternal battle (for moderate values of the concepts of "battle" and "eternity").

(There is no Islamic State in the west, but there are other examples one could name. For example: despite mountains of evidence to the contrary there are still hundreds of millions of people in the western world who think that sending drug addicts to prison is a great idea.)

It is also not a battle that can be successfully fought by anyone who does not picture themselves having their great grandchildren live in the region, because only those who do will have the stamina to keep fighting forever. Americans or Europeans can't be responsible for fighting the battle for a Middle east free of The Islamic State, or whatever other pretentious banner these guys will be fighting under next year.

Congress is the issue

[Bruha]

Congress or the Republican Teapublicans specifically have made our entire government look weak. Our enemies see that we can not get anything accomplished and that this congress will oppose anything the president wants to do as proof that they can act with impunity in other areas of the world. It's not just bad policy decisions by the executive branch. Also for the record Iraq would not agree to a SOF agreement which means our troops would be subject to Iraqi justice not the UCMJ and I doubt there's any president that would agree to leave our troops there with that kind of agreement hanging over their heads.

Re:Congress is the issue

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wow, leftists really can't accept that Obama is just a horrible president, eh? Everything's got to be blamed on someone else. I suppose that makes sense, as the alternative - that you were lied to and Obama really is as bad as everyone says - is too horrifying to contemplate.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Prien715]

There's a false dichotemy. Everyone's moved to the right to the point that Mitt Romney's quite successful healthcare program is considered "socialist" if you attach Obama's name to it (actual socialized medicine is quite different)

There is no left any more. Obama's continued warmongering is the best evidence.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to think of it as a square. The top half of the square is the authoritarian, war is peace, big government, power hungry thieves. Those people are in it for personal power, and everyone else be damned. The bottom half of the square are the idealists who genuinely want to do what's best for the country and the people.

Somehow, the media has managed to slice this square though, not into top and bottom halves, but into left and right halves. As a result, regular people who identify themselves as Democrat, point to the upper right corner of the square and see authoritarian, power hungry scoundrels, and yell: "Evil Republicans!". Meanwhile, regular people who identify themselves as Republican, look at the top left and identify the authoritarian, power hungry scoundrels they see as: "Evil Democrats!". Each unable to see that the "misguided people in their party who are wrong on *some* issues" are just as bad the set of scoundrels they criticize.

Just notice how often big controversial issues are brought up (and their often suspicious timing - like trying to fast track immigration reform the week after the Snowden leaks), and how often those issues are actually solved (hint: never - they're far too convenient for demagogueing the other side ["we wanted to pass Issue A, but the other side wouldn't let us" vs. "Issue A be damned, but they included issue B in the bill which they wont budge on which will end America as we know it!"]).

Saddest part is that because the battle lines are so clearly (mis-)drawn in people minds, they don't listen to the people they "hate". Thus almost all information they get about the people they "hate" they find out from non-neutral 3rd parties. These 3rd parties, use their role to aide the authoritarian scumbags in painting the idealists in the opposing parties as the anti-christ (effectively flipping top and bottom of the other side in their follower's minds).

A coalition government containing: Ralph Nader, Bernie Sander, Ron Wyden, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash and Glenn Beck would oddly be more unified in purpose, more functional, and more for the people than one composed of "moderate centrists" like John McCain, John Kerry, George Bush, and Barack Obama.

The problem with the USA right now is the square is very top heavy.
Planning a 30 year war with Eastasia now is only the authoritarians following Orwell's 1984 instruction manual.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[geekoid]

" Saddam Hussein failed to fulfill his cease-fire obligations "
Only in the most technical way. He was fine, he was bottled up, sanctions were working. It would have been better to make a slow move.

However, I really think if we were going to invade, then yes we should have taken the country and made is US territory.

", his spectacular failure "
name a failure.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[budgenator]

The Caliphate was the ISIL of that day.

The Establishment of the Caliphate is Daesh's over-arching goal, this is the same millenia old Sunnis vs. everybody non-Sunni thing; actually it probably even precedes Islam.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[amiga3D]

Now, now, no need to get snippy. I didn't say the muslims were right, only that the crusades should be considered a war. The war you speak of was back many centuries prior when the Rashidun Caliphate wrested control of the area from the Byzantine Empire. Ancient history and very bloody but I"m having a problem with the "100's of millions" thing. Very strong exageration that is.

Re:more republican oligarphy garbage

[Slim_Jack]

If a Republican says it it must be lies. nah nah nah can't hear you!

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Livius]

The Republicans are too extreme. The Democrats are too moderate.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.

Bzzz! Lying substitution #1: I said nothing about "mattered to US interests". Only that he did violate the agreement. This is an important distinction, because we can spend years arguing, what the "US interests are" exactly, whereas the fact of violation of agreements stands.

Yeah, the US hates dictators. You have to got to be fucking kidding.

Bzzz! Lying substitution #2: I sad mad dictators. Pinochet — our kind of dictator — for example, not only stepped down voluntarily (what sort of tyrant does that?), but also left his country as the South America's top economy.

Killing thousands upon thousands of people

Bzzz! Lie #3. We did not kill "thousands upon thousands". The vast majority of deaths of Iraqis were — and continue to be — at the hands of other Iraqis. We killed very few, taking thousands of POWs — and releasing them promptly after we prevailed. The various counters deliberately omit this important distinction — either because it makes their efforts look silly, or because they sincerely can not. Either way, the fact remains — we took the country over very swiftly and shed relatively little blood.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[c6gunner]

Saddam did not violate any ceasefire agreements in anyway that mattered to US interests.

Oh yeah, shooting at American aircraft is like totally not a big deal.

I should try that line of defence in court though. "Your honour, it's true that I violated my parole conditions, but I didn't do it in any way that matters to your interests. Ya gonna let me go, right?"

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

Only in the most technical way.

Not quite. His air-defenses kept targeting our planes. A few of our personnel remained unaccounted for, and, most importantly, he continued to balance his obligation to account for all weapons of mass destruction with his desire to keep the neighbors afraid of him. These are the words of UN inspector Blix (a man rather disapproving of GWB):

“Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.”

The above quote is from 2003 — 11 years after all of the disarmament was supposed to be finished per the original cease-fire.

Whether or not the full-scale resumption of hostilities was a good idea all things considered, it was certainly justified...

name a failure [of Obama -mi]

How about ISIS rising shortly after the US withdrew its forces? That's what Panetta is talking about in TFA — that the withdrawal was premature. Other failures include Libya (where a turned-around dictator was killed anyway throwing the country into chaos and making turning future despots that much harder), the "Arab spring", the lifting (instead of tightening) of Bush's sanctions against Russia (which encouraged it to invade Ukraine) — to name just a few...

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[murdocj]

Your both wrong the democrats and the republicans are exactly the same. They are just two sides of a authoritarian expansionist kleptocratic coin.

Only on slashdot could this be modded "insightful" and not "funny"

Re: And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[murdocj]

I know... those Democrats, pushing their right wing agenda of freedom of choice, of women controlling their own bodies, when they should be trying to narrow the definition of torture.

Shovel-ready Rhetoric.

[Anonymous Coward]

The region was "perpetually fucked up" long before GWB. Nor did he lie to the American people about that situation. Weapons of mass destruction are a clear and present danger. Did you read today's news about an explosion at an Iranian nuke plant? When that nation's leaders promise that Jihad will not end until America is destroyed, then it's not too hard to guess why they want nukes. Meanwhile, in another of today's news stories, we hear that when a prominent world leader sounds this same warning on a national news show, his comments are censored by the news organization. No, the pushing of sand happens only when you bury your head.

Jobs for the boys

[mykro76]

"Leon? Now that you're retiring, could you help drum up some job security for the rest of us? Say for the next 30 years?"

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[Mr. Slippery]

Oh yeah, shooting at American aircraft is like totally not a big deal.

When those American aircraft are over your country without your consent or justification under international law? It's to be expected, the same as if Russian aircraft were over our country.

50 years of wars

[manu0601]

Come on, Us has been at war in middle east for 50 ears: help a coup in Iran, help jihadists against russians in Afghanistan, help Iraq against Iran (more forward 30 years), help jihadists against Syria, help Iraq against jihadists...

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

When those American aircraft are over your country without your consent or justification under international law?

The no-fly zones enforced by those aircraft were part of the cease-fire agreement.

It's to be expected, the same as if Russian aircraft were over our country.

Nope. Not until we promise Russia to not fly over certain areas ourselves and agree (however grudgingly) to allow them to enforce it.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

If you have a distinct dislike for mad dictators why do you keep invading countries and installing them?

Name the most recent invasion and installation of a mad dictator by the US...

expects=wants

[Revek]

These guys want a forever war.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[lister king of smeg]

Every time I hear that I think the same thing:
"Hey look, another knucklehead who doesn't actually pay attention to politics but says what ever group think crap he pulls out of his ass so he can feel important."

Really both sides want ongoing endless war in the middle east, both sides want to increases surveillance and move toward a police state, both parties side with big media, both sides want internet censorship,... need I go on. Its not crap when its true. Look at the debates what gets argued, abortion which has been in an endless stalemate since the 60s the. health care well some movement but not in a direction that anyone other than the insurance companies wanted, they argue about war in the middleast but both sides do the same thing go arm extremist topple government then go fight extremists that we armed earlier, controll/access has made no real movement either way. where is the real difference?

Re: And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[slick7]

It's easier to make pay-offs with a jump drive than a suitcase of money.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[lister king of smeg]

or somewhere where people know what they are talking about go look at political compass and tell me I am wrong
http://www.politicalcompass.or...

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[shutdown -p now]

but here in America we have a distinct dislike for mad dictators

You mean, like Rafael Trujillo, Fulgencio Batista, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mobutu Seso Seko, Islam Karimov, or King Abdullah?

Are you ESR's subconsciousness, by chance? I can't believe that another asshole so big and so deluded could possibly exist in this world without it collapsing on itself.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

US supported and financed illegitimate coup d'etat, Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine, 2014.

Petro Poroshenko was elected by free elections. He got 57% of the vote. There was no "coup d'etat", and you forgot to provide links proving American financing of whatever happened.

Kremlin much?

"It's About the Oil"

[maynard]

Back in 2006, then outgoing network news anchor Ted Koppel wrote a New York Times editorial stating the obvious: The Iraq war is about oil. And though the Bush Administration at the time had vociferously denied this fact, two years before that even former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil had said the same during a CBS interview.

So now Panetta's saying it will be a thirty year war. Prepare ourselves for lost treasure, spilled blood, and the tears of war over this nearly indefinite period that compares in length to England's old The War of Roses. All to control a declining resource that's causing serious global environmental harm to boot.

Who here notices that this 30 year timeline dovetails in nicely with the UN's IPCC's Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation

Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE [Renewable Energy] will be widespread around the world. Although the precise
distribution of RE deployment among regions varies substantially across scenarios, the scenarios are largely consistent
in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, the total RE deployment is higher over
the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries12 than in the group of Annex I countries in most scenarios (Figure
SPM.10).

[chart in document]

Scenarios generally indicate that growth in RE will be widespread around the world. Although the precise
distribution of RE deployment among regions varies substantially across scenarios, the scenarios are largely consistent
in indicating widespread growth in RE deployment around the globe. In addition, the total RE deployment is higher over
the long term in the group of non-Annex I countries12 than in the group of Annex I countries in most scenarios (Figure
SPM.10).

So a thirty year war to control world oil that ends at just about the same time global deployment of renewable systems are predicted to offset world energy needs. Huh.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

US supported and financed illegitimate coup d'etat, Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine, 2014.

(Argh, sorry — clicked on "submit" instead of returning to editing by mistake.)

The request was: Name the most recent invasion and installation of a mad dictator by the US.... You don't even accuse the US of invading Ukraine, nor are you even accusing Poroshenko of being "mad". And your accusation of us "installing" him remains rather tenuous — certainly without any substantiation.

Kremlin too much, indeed...

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[mi]

but here in America we have a distinct dislike for mad dictators

You mean, like Rafael Trujillo, Fulgencio Batista, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mobutu Seso Seko, Islam Karimov, or King Abdullah?

Though we did prefer some of them over the alternatives, we did distinctly dislike all of them... Just as I said.

Re:Vietnam vs. Korea

[shutdown -p now]

I find it ironic that you cite figures for Stalin (the one from Solzhenitsyn at that, long since discredited as accurate data) and Khmer Rouge, but not the actual figures for Vietnam. Given that communists did take over, surely that would be the numbers to compare, no?

It's also funny that you have to bring up Khmer Rouge, given that ultimately it was the communist Vietnam that reigned them in. So how many people did those Vietnamese commies kill in Cambodia?

And you still haven't answered the question. How many people slaughtered and villages burned do you consider acceptable to expunge a hostile ideology or hold it at bay? Are you in agreement with Mao on the methods here, that if killing half of the entire humanity would mean total eradication of communist and the eternal victory of capitalism, it would be a price well paid?

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[aralin]

Give it couple years. Honestly, military or covert action, the result is the same. The military came right after the covert action, there are hundreds of US "advisors" operating there right now. As for "mad" part, he's started a civil war, killed 3500 people so far and started to enact laws to oppress minorities. I'd say it qualifies. Also he's set private mercenary bands uncontrolled by the government against civilian population in the process. Many of which left mass graves in their wakes, bodies are being exhumed that died execution style with bullet to head from short distance, this spells war crimes to me.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[aralin]

Ok, I was trying to be brief. Yes, right after the coup, it was Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister. Petro Poroshenko indeed won election that was held in part of the country, which supported him and not in the part where he would lose as there was a civil war going. Hardly a free election. That's like saying that during the US civil war, the US had an election in confederate states and Jefferson Davis was the legitimate president of US. In a word - laughable. Here is the call where Nuland and Pyatt decide on who will be in the Ukraine government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They agree to Yatsenyuk, but say Klitschko should stay out of it. That's exactly how it happened. Here is where they admit to finance the opposition to the tune of $5 bln USD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... check at 7:45

But as I said, the result of this will not be apparent to many people for a while. In 2-5 years the involvement will be clear, probably well documented and in another 20-30 years, US will admit to its role. So far it's just propaganda full steam from all sides. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

30 year war? No. 30 year battle? Yes.

[rlh100]

If we treat this as a war, we will be fighting, killing and destroying for 30 years changing little. Most of the death and destruction will happen to the civilian population. We need to treat this as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. We have to change attitudes and how they treat each other. Break the cycle of tit for tat, I kill you because you killed my father/brother. This will take a generation or more.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[TranquilVoid]

However, I really think if we were going to invade, then yes we should have taken the country and made is US territory.

I disagree. When it works democracy does so because it gives people with different voices a say in the system, alleviating the need to solve differences with violence. You may contend that the Iraqi people are not currently suited to democracy, but for the US to autocratically rule Iraq it would be forced to do so with an even more brutal hand than Saddam Hussein, since you've not only ruled out democracy but must rule as complete outsiders devoid of ethnic glue. Doing so would be for the US to lose a piece of its soul.

The world is a battlefield...

[spacefight]

... and the reason is why lies well within the scope of the neocon policy makers of the last couple of decades. I just started reading the book Dirty Wars from Jeremy Scahill - a real eye opener. ISIL/ISIS fits perfectly - 30 years of war means 30 years of spending tax money towards the military/industrial complex.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzz! Lie #3. We did not kill "thousands upon thousands". The vast majority of deaths of Iraqis were — and continue to be — at the hands of other Iraqis.

This is a meaningless distinction. An occupying power is legally responsible for the security of the country they are occupying. This makes the 100000+ casualties of the Iraqi civil war firmly the responsibility of the U.S. regardless of who did the actual killing. If you don't want to be responsible for the shit other people get up to, don't occupy their country.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[strikethree]

Reagan was a moderate Republican.

Say what?! Reagan was a hardcore far right Republican. What we have now is not even mappable on the sanity chart. This shit is crazy. As in absolutely unbelievable, fiction can't even get this over the top crazy. Forget right and left. The needle has gone entirely off of the scales.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[Required Snark]

Oh, it's the racist slug again. Making up more shit as well.

Sorry to interrupt your masturbatory political fantasy, but Iraq stabilization and reconstruction was so incredibly screwed up by Bush and his incompetent neo-con thugs that the current Middle East clusterfuck, or is equivalent, was inevitable. It's like the python infestation in Florida. Once those suckers get out and start breeding, there's no way in hell to clean up the mess.

After the collapse of the Hussein regime, the Bush administration had no effective plan to deal with the aftermath. That's why we're screwed right now. Some examples, with references.

The 12 Billion in cash that was airlifted into Iraq and pretty much disappeared into thin air

The memorandum concludes: "Many of the funds appear to have been lost to corruption and waste ... thousands of 'ghost employees' were receiving pay cheques from Iraqi ministries under the CPA's control. Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States."

The team that the Bush administration sent for Iraq reconstrction was riddled with incompetence and cronyism.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

Then there was the case of General Shinseki who was right about the troop levels needed to occupy Iraq, and was publicly shot down for expressing his correct opinion.

Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the United States would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation. From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned. Critics of the Bush Administration alleged that Shinseki was forced into early retirement as Army Chief of Staff because of his comments on troop levels; however, his retirement was announced nearly a year before those comments.

When the insurgency took hold in postwar Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki had been correct that more troops were needed.

Over here in the real world, we are still living with the horrible consequences of invading the wrong country

These people are scum.

[fredrated]

And I don't mean ISIS.

Re:a better idea

[fredrated]

If you are not being sarcastic then you are scum.

...and behind the screen we will find....

[docwatson223]

The Chinese Intelligence apparatus funding the Jihad groups in order to keep the West occupied in Small Wars while China grows it's military to exceed the West. Though I guess I shouldn't have said that out loud and in open source but it's not like anyone with two brain cells can't make the assumption.

1984

[Squidlips]

Aren't there continuous low-grade wars in 1984 to keep the people scared?

Yeaahhhhhhh

[NetNed]

Because I "trust" a former head of CIA and DoD when it comes to claims on war since I am certain he stands to gain "nothing" from the cost of war. Why not just ramp it up to 100, heck 1000 years? How can anyone hear this crap and think "it's just how it is"? We have government employees that are so corrupt they believe their own bullshit.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[NotDrWho]

Ralph Nader, Bernie Sander, Ron Wyden, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash and Glenn Beck

Every one of those people is a self-serving liar and thief. If you REALLY want a government to represent the people, you need to start with good decent people, not fucking scumbag politicians and media whores. You need to pick the guy who doesn't WANT to be in charge--because the guy who does is a almost certainly a selfish scumbag looking to advance his own interests, not those of the people. Find the good person who doesn't want to lead and you'll probably also find the guy who doesn't want to steal, lie, pad his own pockets with graft, accumulate power, serve his own ego, betray his constituents for 30 pieces of silver, etc.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[hxnwix]

Give it couple years. Honestly, military or covert action, the result is the same. The military came right after the covert action, there are hundreds of US "advisors" operating there right now. As for "mad" part, he's started a civil war, killed 3500 people so far and started to enact laws to oppress minorities. I'd say it qualifies. Also he's set private mercenary bands uncontrolled by the government against civilian population in the process. Many of which left mass graves in their wakes, bodies are being exhumed that died execution style with bullet to head from short distance, this spells war crimes to me.

Uhhh, ok.... Been watching a lot of Russia Today, have we?

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[dywolf]

No.
No he was not.
He is only "moderate" in comparison to today's Tea Party bent GOP.

In his day he was at the vangaurd of the conservative movement helping push the GOP further rightward.
He was NOT a moderate Republican in his day.

Re:WBC. Nuff said.

[Talderas]

Thanks for playing, but this has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with dogmatic ideology. If you read any of the examples I gave, except for Islam, you would have realized that. Japan? Imperial Japan post Meiji restoration commited atrocities against civilians in Korea, Manchuria, and China. This was not driven by their Shinto belief but rather but the belief that all people besides the Japanese were inferior. China? Committed numerous atrocities in the name of its Communist government in order to suppress disent and assert control. Soviet Russia? The party would regularly purge people in and out of the party would were considered a threat to whomever held the reins. Germany? The belief in the superiority of the aryan race along with viewing others as inferior beings led to the Holocaust. Rwanda? A genocide that wiped out 20% of its population including 70% of the tutsi that lived there. No religious dogma here, just belief that the ethniticity is superior. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Again, not religious but an estimated 2-2.5 million people died from their brutality and intent to force people out of cities and back into being peasants.

It depends on your level of motivation

[RogueWarrior65]

I believe that 30 year figure can be significantly shortened if our level of motivation is high enough. Take, for example, the Hoover Dam. It was built in 5 years. Or the first Transcontinental Railroad which was built in 6 years. If these projects were undertaken today, they'd probably take several times longer or quite possibly they'd never get built at all because of the quagmire of bureaucracy. Look at Boston's Big Dig which took 15 years to complete.

The war on terror or southern border control or even California's high-speed rail project could be completed very quickly but people would have to be willing to cut through the bullsh*t to get them done.

Short Term Thinking

[nehumanuscrede]

We invade and / or bomb half the planet typically as a knee jerk reaction to something that's happened ( or invented as an excuse ).

Hell, for that matter, that's pretty much how America as a whole works. All of our laws, our entire way of life is based on reactionary thinking vs any premeditated thought process.

The short version is: American policy makers don't think of what their actions will bring beyond the short term ( read that: election period ). No one sits back and considers what the consequences might be a bit further down the road. Some can see it, but they're usually not in any position to make the decisions.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[aralin]

Uhhh, ok.... Been watching a lot of Russia Today, have we?

Please, RT is pure propaganda, most of this information comes from Reuters, AP and White House press briefings directly. But after you've seen few of these, you just know how to put information in context. If you learn how to translate text to emotionally neutral terms, the facts come out from horse's mouth. All you got to do is listen.

Panetta is disloyal and too keen for 30 years war

[IndieRafael]

I was a young House staffer in the 1980s when Panetta was Chairman of the House Budget Committee. I admired him as a person and a leader.

My impression is that he's become more and more part of the "deep state" in recent years. I've lost a lot of respect for him.

As Secretary of Defense, Panetta whined about defense spending cuts like a hysterical high school girl. He should have stepped up and confronted the Pentagon's bloat, corruption and mismanagement.

Finally, it is disloyal and unprofessional of Panetta to write a book this "honest" while Obama is still in office -- that would be true no matter which persons or parties were involved. Yes, Panetta will sell more books because he's criticizing a sitting president instead of a former one. Does Panetta need the extra money that bad? Or is he setting himself up to be invited to be a Vice Presidential nominee? (That's wild speculation.)

Finally, I agree that Obama doesn't fight his political foes enough. But Obama has been a tiny bit restrained on foreign wars, and that's wisdom, not weakness. I don't welcome Panetta's 30 years war. Among other things, the US cannot afford it financially. The US should restrain itself from so many foreign wars instead of borrowing trillions more that undermines our national economic security.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Rakarra]

He's even more of a one than Raygun. Starting us down the path to thirty years of war proves he is a Republican. That is the way of their kind.

Did you read the article or listen to the interview? Panetta says that we're in for a 30-year war, and his criticism of Obama is that the President had been resisting it, that he was too cognizant of a "war-weary public" who wanted an end to the wars the US was involved in. Panetta's charge is that Obama should have used more influence in Iraq instead of up and leaving (with the dickweed Malaki in charge).

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Rakarra]

A coalition government containing: Ralph Nader, Bernie Sander, Ron Wyden, Sarah Palin, Justin Amash and Glenn Beck would oddly be more unified in purpose, more functional, and more for the people than one composed of "moderate centrists" like John McCain, John Kerry, George Bush, and Barack Obama.

The best part is that it'd be a real life political version of the game "Clue." The entire US population could play, guessing which of the above bludgeoned Ron Wyden to death with a candlestick in the library.

Re: And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Rakarra]

abortion? gays? death penalty? environment? religion? wellfare? education?

You mean, the topics that affect the average person the most and thus the ones they actually care about, rather than the nebulous and ill-explained "power?"

Leon, Please shut-up.

[OldHawk777]

Leon Panetta IMO makes the same mistake that POTUS Chaney and vPOTUS Rove made in the GWB Whitehouse. Fear based analysis of your enemy is a flawed analysis.

Our enemy can be Sunni-wahhabist, Shia-shurh, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS ... or Russian, China, French, German hate-fanatics and terrorist .... Fear is the most lethal and dangerous weapon in their arsenal. Politicians, clerics, wannabes ... in the USA, that stress fear, are all chicken-little screaming for falling clouds.

The greatest military powers that have existed in the world for the past 200 years have not ended US or destroyed The Constitution of US, and very few have been able to injure US. Our enemies have great puffery as do our Politicians, clerics, wannabes ... in the USA, but actually they seek to rule US by fear. FEAR is just a four phucking letter word that has no value to US and our leadership, but does impress foolish enemies of US.

USA Politicians, clerics, wannabes ... need to grow-up and become leaders for US or they need to shut-the-phuck-up.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Optali]

CRAP! You stole my joke :_(

Re: And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[znrt]

so you can read. great!

keep practicing and someday this will become a very useful skill. :-)

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Agent0013]

Yep! We should do democracy like the Romans did. With random selection to congress. If someone wants the job, they damn well should not have it. So the only option left is to choose the people randomly and the few that are in it for corrupt reasons will have a very narrow chance of getting in. And they should be limited to one term.

Who the f**k is Leon Panetta?

[jafac]

This dude is nothing more than a rightwing political hack. And his delusional fantasy of a 30 year war is absurd - because you have to ask; after 13 years, and somewhere between $4-$6 Trillion dollars; and a wrecked economy, who, exactly is going to PAY for this 30-year-war?

It's too expensive. We can't pay. The cartel of private banks who run the FED are no longer interested in running the printing presses to continue paying for this shit: they made that fact abundantly clear in 2008. Until Corporate America ponies up the cash (ie: pay your taxes, bitches), our budget for building bombs, planes, and other expensive disposable toys, is about zero.

30 years? Rather optimistic.

[RockDoctor]

Going on past experiences of asymmetric, ideological wars (Northern Ireland (1967-present), Vietnam (1941-1976), the reconstruction of China (1927-1949, ignoring Taiwan/ROC), the Jewish-Arab war (1947-present)), hoping that the US-Arab war will end in thirty years is a bit optimistic.

Of course, the US could try getting out of the war. But most likely that would just result in the war being relocated from the Levant to the mainland US. Oh dear. What a pity. never mind.

Re:Incompetent Administration (Thanks GWB)

[Vitriol Angst]

This post got modded up?

1) The violation was of a UN resolution. The DAY it would expire. When was the last time the US cared about a UN resolution? All I can remember is that one time. So there was no violation found and no probable cause.

2) The US supports all kinds of dictatorships.

3) We were responsible for the deaths of many thousands. At least 2 million people were dispossessed of their homes. We didn't collect numbers on these deaths we caused because the lady charged with collecting that data was killed by friendly fire in the green zone on her way to the airport. The fact that "other Iraqis" killed even more people does not dismiss the fact that this would not have happened had we not bombed and invaded their country, destroyed their government, let the soldiers go home with their weapons, left the ammo depots with a couple padlocks on them and sometimes a guard or two, and generally set the country up with two religious factions and designed to fail.

The people in charge are responsible, and we were in charge while about 100,000 or more Iraqis died and 2 million more displaced, and thousands of birth defects which were likely due to depleted Uranium.

Anyway; invading another country is not trivial, and there was no reason to. Other than putting some oil companies back in the country and having the same production sharing agreements as they had before Saddam kicked them out. Is it a coincidence that our 14 fortified embassies are all located on the path of the oil pipeline? It was a resource war; plain and simple. It's just now that we have an internet, more people realize this than when we had the Spanish/American war.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[aristotle-dude]

Now, now, no need to get snippy. I didn't say the muslims were right, only that the crusades should be considered a war. The war you speak of was back many centuries prior when the Rashidun Caliphate wrested control of the area from the Byzantine Empire. Ancient history and very bloody but I"m having a problem with the "100's of millions" thing. Very strong exageration that is.

Why don't you go back in time and tell that to the christians and Jews in Africa, Asia Minor and the Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhi in countries east of Iran who were killed by the Muslim Crusaders.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[amiga3D]

Tell them what? That 100's of millions is an exageration? I doubt I'd have to tell them, I'm sure they could figure that out.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[monsted]

Ferrariyal.

Re:And some say Obama isn't a Republican

[Joey Vegetables]

The beauty of the system you just described is that it paints not just "opposing" authoritarians, but those of us who are more liberty-minded as well, as the enemy. Of both sides. It is perhaps the most demonically clever system of social control ever devised. It can tolerate a certain amount of dissent, which is why people like you and me are still alive. It knows that even if a few people discover that they are in a Matrix, they are very unlikely to ever convince enough others to matter. Now, let's see if it can handle the combination of Ebola plus a billion or so people who actually live out their faith, as opposed to simply using it as an excuse to live as they please. My guess is that it can't. Of course, even if it did, any system of tyranny always contains the seeds of its own destruction. Betting on the long-term survival of this wicked world empire would be an extremely bad bet, although it will likely still do a lot of damage before it finally goes away.

Re:30 year wars aren't wars

[aristotle-dude]

Tell them what? That 100's of millions is an exageration? I doubt I'd have to tell them, I'm sure they could figure that out.

Are you too lazy to google? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...