|
Clinton’s Plan To “Defeat ISIS” Is A Threat
Hillary Clinton's three part plan to defeat ISIS is to:
- Defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria
- Destroy ISIS everywhere
- Prevent ISIS attacks in the U.S.A.
bigger
That plan, to me, seems similar to George W. Bush's plan to defeat the Taliban which was to defeat the Taliban. Or maybe more like Nixon's plan to defeat drugs which had nothing to do with drugs but was actually a plan to criminalize blacks and antiwar hippies.
The real motive behind the above Clinton nonsense may be the interest of the powers-that-are to keep the war on ISIS going forever. Obama already did his best to establish ISIS. He refrained from fighting it in its infancy in 2012, refrained from holding it back in Iraq to "regime change" Prime Minister Maliki and kept its revenues flowing until Putin shamed him into finally bombing its oil infrastructure.
Clinton's plan, which declares only aims without any steps to reach them, would mean endless wars in this or that Middle East country and/or in Africa or Asia. It means further suppression of any privacy and opposition at home.
It is not a plan but a threat. Will she win votes with such nonsense?
Jack Rabid at 74 —
You have speculation; I see no proof. Your solipsism and simplistic “analysis” again lead you astray.
For example, what proof do you have that Mrs. Clinton “ignored” ISIL’s funding, either as Secretary of State or as a candidate? No doubt one of those silly little lists of yours, where you find she failed to say the secret word and win the prize. At least you went light on the ugly formatting with this one.
And yes, it was quite interesting that I did not discuss an issue that you had not brought up.
Someone is misrepresenting Putin’s views. Since you provide no source, one cannot say who. But here’s an account of his statement from RT. Emphasis added.
“I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told the journalists.
Private individuals, in some, not all G20 states. I don’t find any list of the 40. He also suggested Washington was reassessing cooperation in fighting ISIL.
“We need to organize work specifically concentrated on the prevention of terrorist attacks and tackling terrorism on a global scale. We offered to cooperate [with the US] in anti-IS efforts. Unfortunately, our American partners refused. They just sent a written note and it says: ‘we reject your offer’,” Putin said.
“But life is always evolving and at a very fast pace, often teaching us lessons. And I think that now the realization that an effective fight [against terror] can only be staged together is coming to everybody,” the Russian leader said.
A plan to take on Iran and Hezbollah in 2007 is not the US creating ISIL, which is not active in Iran. Hezbollah has fought them in Syria; its a Shia/Alawite vs. Sunni thing. And as I noted, our use of Islamic jihadis began in 1979. Given the blowback, one might think we’d have thought better of it since.
You presume that Erdogan’s support for ISIL is directed by the US, when it is quite clear that the Islamist Erdogan follows his own agenda. We support the Kurds, to a degree, while the Turks shell and repress them.
Israel clearly pursues its own agenda; see their invective vs. the Iran deal. Assuming they actually do support ISIL. From a quick Bing search, I only see nut-jobs like Alex Jones asserting this. You seem to be having a hell of time at the Green Tea Party.
You overlook the main objective of the United States in Syria. It is regime change, not fighting Islamic jihadis; we’d support “moderates,” if we could find any.
Our Saudi allies consider ISIL useful in that theater of war, and we played along. We were not so gentle in Iraq, which might account for their somewhat diminished presence there; their gains in the north around Mosul certainly were not desired by Washington. The Saudis themselves seem to have no compunction about fighting jihadis in Yemen. Again, the Saudis also are ready, willing, and able to pursue their own policies without regard to US interests.
I tried to show a long history of repression and surveillance, open and hidden, here in the United States. “The USA government see[s] ISIS as an off-shoot of al Queda and the fight against ISIS as part of the GWOT.” That rather sounds like more of the same to me. See the early Global Cold War against Communism. You’re not asserting that the September 11th. tragedy was the work of the Israelis, CIA, Rothschilds, House of Windsor, little green men from Mars, are you?
Al-Qaeda’s origins are well known. Mujaheddin butt-hurt after Washington cut them lose, once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, and the bin Laden’s annoyance that American soldiers, and not the Saudis alone, drove Hussein out of Kuwait, are the primary motivations.
Funny, I don’t see you accusing Chomsky of supporting Mrs. Clinton. Again, I do not support her by stating the obvious — any sort of Democratic Administration will be better than any sort of Republican one. Stein, who not on the ballot in all 50 states, has absolutely no chance. Bad analysis produces bad action, and you seem primed for both.
As always, I’m focused on doing what I can to help build a genuine workers party. Conscious workers, organized to promote their own organic leaders, and keep them accountable, are the only way to beat the system and avoid barbarism. That’s where my vote is going. Either Dem. or Rep., regardless of who wins, that is the work that needs to be done. I believe it will easier under the former than the latter, but either way, I’ll cope.
Obsessive-compulsive hatred of Mrs. Clinton is not a way forward. You have never answered my question — exactly how do you see revolution coming about? Since you’re actually a conservative of some sort, who got stranded when that got too weird, you’re likely ill-equipped for such a theoretical analysis. (“My perspective is more left than what is generally called ‘center-left’. In part, this is due to the public’s move to the right over the last 30 years.”)
And as I noted on the Open Thread — you’re the disembodied fake prick. Gentlemen lack the necessary anatomy to derive satisfaction from such a device.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 4:50 utc | 76
fairleft at 75 —
Glad to see you back, you’ve been a light poster of late.
I don’t know that I’m “trading in the word fascism.” I suggested The Donald had the potential to become one, given that he has potential brownshirts and a nationalistic, militaristic policy. The seed is not the tree.
The sort of growing oligarchy you describe, though not a desirable state of affairs is not fascist. Fascism has a strong anti-communist, anti-labor component, born out of sharp class struggle produced by crisis. It creates a mass conservative-populist movement, around the strong leader. If the present oligarchy of finance capital starts to teeter in crisis and begins formally banning dissent, get back to me.
Fascism is not simply any pro-elite policy one finds distasteful. I always use the word very carefully. Only the Banderist regime in Kiev qualifies, given the support it enjoys from actual fascist movements like OUN and related militias, such as Pravyi Sektor and Azov.
I saw Robert Paxton, author of Anatomy of Fascism, on Democracy Now a few days ago. He gives a different definition than myself.
Well, fascism is a mass nationalist movement intended to restore a country that’s been damaged or is in decline, by expansion, by violent attacks on enemies, internal as well as external enemies, and measures of authority, the replacement of democracy by an authoritarian dictatorship.
But he does note the Communists, and crisis.
There are two parties that are growing in 1932: the Communist Party and the Nazi Party. And if you don’t bring in the Nazi Party, then maybe it’s the Communists who are going to take over. There’s that dynamic of social panic. They bring Hitler into the tent. And once he’s there, he doesn’t have full power when he’s chancellor. He doesn’t even have all the ministries. But he then—then he takes over full power, and nobody is willing to fight him, because that would mean helping the Communists.
So do we have fascism? Well, at least, not now.
If Donald Trump puts his followers in colored shirts and they begin to fight in the streets, then you’ve got fascism.
So while it is certainly possible, it has not happened yet.
In an earlier thread, I noted a number of reform that would “Transitional Demands” that would shore up popular participation and lessen the influence of capital: Multi-member districts, proportional representation, an end to Citizens United and the start of public financing, an end to gerrymandering. A proper labor party could push for these, which would go a long way to opening up political life.
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 25 2016 5:22 utc | 78
rufass @76
You have speculation; I see no proof.
You imagine that ‘proof’ is easy to come by because Intelligence Agencies don’t cover their tracks?
You ignored most of what I did provide: colossal failure of the anti-ISIS training program; a group of military analyst whistle-blowers who claim that their intelligence was distorted; USA’s meek bombing program; Israel’s medical care for extremists.
what proof do you have that Mrs. Clinton “ignored” ISIL’s funding
I didn’t say she ignored it. She’s likely to have been very approving of allies funding extremists. After all, she helped the extremists to win in Libya, didn’t she?
I did not discuss an issue that you had not brought up.
Hillary’s ignoring of ISIS funding was brought up by others in this thread.
Private individuals, in some, not all G20 states.
The miraculous rise of ISIS and its funding have been much discussed. If Russia knows of these individuals, you can bet that Western and ME countries know of them also. But USA did little, if anything, to stop it.
A plan to take on Iran and Hezbollah in 2007 is not the US creating ISIL
I didn’t say the US created ISIL. I disagreed with YOUR statement that “ISIL is the independent creation of the Saudis and their fellow Gulf Wahabis”
You presume that Erdogan’s support for ISIL is directed by the US
I didn’t say that it was. Every country that supoorts the Assad must go! effort has their own reasons for doing so. Hersh named the ringleaders as USA-KSA-Israel. I no reason to doubt him, given what has happened since.
I tried to show a long history of repression and surveillance …
You tried to muddy the waters (to defend Hillary), and you are still at it.
ISIS is just an extension of the GWOT. GWOT has been used to justify torture, repression, spying, etc. School children are now ratted out by their teachers.
I don’t see you accusing Chomsky …
When Chomsky shows up at MoA I’ll be glad to have a chat with him.
You are no Chomsky.
I’m focused on doing what I can to help build a genuine workers party.
Bullshit. Hillary doesn’t get you any closer to that.
Obsessive-compulsive hatred of Mrs. Clinton is not a way forward.
So you’d rather ignore her faults, or blame the victim.
Gentlemen lack the necessary anatomy …
You’re not a ‘gentleman’. You’re an anonymous blogger. As such, you’re merely a collection of comments to the rest of us.
What you termed a ‘Show’ is more accurately a dildo, because only you derive pleasure from the thrust of your bullshit arguments.
That you named your dildo ‘Magisterium’ seems appropriate to your over-inflated ego and penchant for stretching the truth.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 25 2016 7:10 utc | 79
fairleft at 93 –-
Many thought the Romanovs looked pretty solid.
Nothing lasts forever; technological and social conditions change, in a continuous feed back loop with ideas and popular action. Numerous elites have come and gone, and in the course of obtaining and retaining mass support, the plebs have managed to obtain a few tribunes and forums.
Gee, I was unaware the Philip Randolph Hearst and the rest of the Yellow Journalist gave the Wobblies and Populists a fair hearing. How really open to popular opinion has the media been? Seems like more of the same.
A little ageism? I don’t follow his work that closely, but Chomsky seems about as acute as ever. He does look a bit more frail now, which is because he’s in his eighties.
I share Chomsky’s worries about the Rethuglicans as a group, though perhaps not to his degree. I find the departure from his previous agnosticism significant. He particularly stresses the importance of immediate action to prevent (moderate?) global warming.
It is not just Trump’s bullying swagger, his glee at torture, his racism and misogyny, the clear intent to escalate in the Mid-East (I doubt if any changes will come to NATO, too long too important to too many policy makers, to say nothing of our “special relationship” with Old Blighty). It’s the sort of climate policies, judges, and other baubles for the Koch’s that he or any Republican will provide.
I believe positive change is possible. And do I detect of hint of optimism at 98? He’s raising issues, but what political and social forces stand capable of utilizing the potential energy?
ben at 92 –
Mussolini’s gifts did not include theory; Giovanni Gentile ghost-wrote A Doctrine of Fascism for him.
The corporatism Mussolini talked up is, like fascism, a very specific ideology. It involves the formal involvement of bodies representing business and labor in governance. These labor “unions” would of course be sections of the Fascist Party; only the bosses would get a real say. See the section onFascist Corporatism in Wiki. It is in a sense synthesis of Catholic corporatism and syndicalism.
I was disappointed, no transcript of Wolf’s talk, since I can’t sit through interviews on the computer. It’s always a good segment when he appears on Democracy Now.
Here’s an interesting take on The Donald. He’s not Benito Mussolini but rather Jefferson Davis, says Steve Ross, an historian with the University of Southern California.
It’s not that all of Trump’s supporters want to own slaves or secede from the United States. But they can see their political clout disappearing, and are responding by supporting an extremist movement….
“What you have is the kind of pre-emptive anger of a certain part of the white population that understands within the next decade or two, Anglo-WASP America — white Anglo-Saxon America — is going to be a minority in this country,” Ross said. “And they’re angry about that. And so Trump is the leader, he’s the Jefferson Davis of his own time.”
Here’s a query to the Bar — historically the lumpen-proletariat (along with white collar workers and the urban and rural petit-bourgeoisie) has been the mass base of fascism; the German trade unions were solidly KPD/SPD to the end, for example.
Trump is apparently finding support among union members. Doesn’t this reflect the lumpenization of the entire working class? The neo-liberal destruction of manufacturing by outsourcing offshore, as well as threat to many other forms of labor by globalization, as ongoing assaults on the civil service, has made even the labor aristocracy insecure.
The skilled trades in Victorian capitalism had enough control over the labor process to be able to command sufficient wages and leisure to be able to effectively organize. It was only when unions moved to an industrial level in the later 19th. cent. that other trades, such as weavers and potters, got adequate representation.
Do we have enough time and money? What other form of “social capital,” if you will, might be required, are they available?
Given The Donald’s rhetorical style, if fighting does break out, we’ll have to call it the Uncivil War.
Don’t forget to tip your server!
Posted by: rufus magister | Mar 26 2016 8:05 utc | 100
|
