Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 04, 2019

Syria Sitrep - Trump Says U.S. Will Leave But Pentagon Keeps Adding Forces

The U.S. retreat from northeast Syria is still not happening. In yesterdays interview with CBS President Trump again said the troops would leave, but the the Pentagon is doing the opposite of retreating.

(not current) bigger

The Islamic State forces north of the Euphrates are left to holding some 4 square kilometer of ground near the border to Iraq. The few hundred ISIS fighters still alive could be killed in a day or two which would then be the right time for the U.S. to leave as President Trump announced two month ago.

But the U.S. military keeps increasing its troop numbers and supplies in the area. During the last two month the number of U.S. soldiers in northeast Syria rose by nearly 50%. Instead of the officially acknowledged 2,000 there are now at least 3,000 U.S. soldiers in northeast Syria. New weapons and equipment arrive every day. Additionally, the Syrian Observatory reports, the U.S. is bringing in a significant number of TOW anti-tank missiles and heavy machine guns even though there is no longer an apparent use for these:

[T]he International Coalition Forces brought quantities of anti-armor thermal missiles during the recent period, to their bases east of Euphrates area, in conjunction with bringing quantities of machineguns known as “DShK”, and the reliable sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory that the range of the missiles reaches about 6 km, but the reasons for bringing these weapons was not known, especially as the “Islamic State” Organization in its last pocket at the east bank of Euphrates River is almost ended, ..
[T]he Syrian Observatory has documented since the US president’s decision to withdraw until the 3rd of February 2018, the entry of 1130 trucks at least, carrying equipment, ammunition, weapons, military, and logistic equipment to bases of the International Coalition east of Euphrates, ..
The process of entering the trucks also comes in conjunction with the arrival of hundreds of soldiers of the US Special Forces to the Syrian territory in a specific and special operation, the goal of which is to arrest the remaining leaders and members of the “Islamic State” Organization who are trapped in the remaining 4 kilometers for it east of Euphrates, ..

Today the New York Times finally confirms the increased troop numbers the Observatory reported weeks ago:

The American military has started withdrawing some equipment, but not yet troops, officials said on Sunday. The number of American troops in Syria has actually increased in recent weeks to more than 3,000 — a standard practice to bring in additional security and logistics troops temporarily to help protect and carry out the process of pulling out — three Defense Department officials said.

The explanation makes little sense. One does not need 1,000 additional troops to secure and remove the stocks of a 2,000 strong force deployment in mostly friendly territory.

The NYT also reveals that the U.S. wants to led the Kurdish PKK keep the arms it received:

A meeting in late January of the National Security Council’s “deputies committee” — the No. 2 leaders of national security departments and agencies — recommended allowing the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of Kurdish and Arab fighters, to keep the equipment the Pentagon has provided them and for an American-led air campaign to continue airstrikes to defend them against the Islamic State, according to two senior American officials.

This breaks a promise the U.S. repeatedly made to Turkey and gives Ankara more reasons to threaten the Kurds.

On Saturday a U.S. air attack targeted a Syrian army position south of the Euphrates near the border town al-Bukamal:

A military source told SANA that the U.S.-led coalition warplanes carried out an air strike overnight Saturday on Syrian artillery position in Sokkariyeh village, west of al-Bukamal city.

The source added that the attack resulted in destroying the artillery and injuring two soldiers.

SANA reporter said that, in parallel with the coalition’s aggression, Daesh terrorists attacked military points in the area, but the army units repelled the attack and killed and wounded most of the attacking terrorists.

This is one of several incidents that lets one assume that the U.S. intentionally lets some ISIS fighters escape to bother the Syrian government.

The U.S. military says it fears the ISIS would regrow should U.S. troops retreat. But that argument only holds when no other troops would replace them. The only viable solution to handle northeast Syria after the territorial defeat of the Islamic State is obviously to ask the Syrian government to retake control of its land. It could defeat remaining Islamic State sleeper cells, handle the prisoners the Kurds have taken,  and keep the YPK/PKK and Turkey apart. But the U.S. foreign policy borg is still unwilling to concede that.

James Jeffrey, the neoconservative U.S. special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, thought up an elaborate scheme to 'protect the Kurds' and to secure the borders to Turkey with the help of allied troops.

Aaron Stein @aaronstein1 - 17:33 utc - 24 Jan 2019

The Jeffrey plan being carried to Ankara/Rojava is very complex, requires open-ended commitments from UK-France, Turkish patrols in rural areas, SDF acquiescence, 3rd party forces, and US top cover, perhaps including a US enforced NFZ (unclear if POTUS is on board with this bit)

A week after that tweet the Wall Street Journal reported that the crazy scheme failed to win support from any of the relevant parties. The Kurds rejected it and Britain and France declined to send troops on a never ending mission between the waring Turkish and Kurdish sides.

No news has been released of any different scheme. The YPK/PKK Kurds the U.S. used as proxy force against the Islamic State recently lobbied in Washington to keep some U.S. troops in the area:

The group’s message to Washington policymakers has centered around slowing the US withdrawal, and stopping Turkish plans to police a safe zone on the border of northern Syria, which the SDC sees as a potentially deadly repeat of the 2018 incursion into the Kurdish-held city of Afrin.

The lobbying effort is likely to fail.

The Kurds still demand a substantial autonomy in exchange for letting the Syrian army retake the control of the northeast. Damascus rejects any local autonomy that goes beyond cultural rights. The teaching of a Kurdish language in local schools will be allowed, but there will be no separate Kurdish administration. As the alternatives fail to evolve the Kurds will soon have to choose between agreeing to Damascus' conditions or getting slaughtered by a Turkish invasion force.

Meanwhile Russia is working to reestablish the Adana Memorandum of 1998 between Turkey and Syria. In it Syria promised to hinder all Kurdish attacks from Syria on Turkey, while Turkey promised to refrained from anti-Kurdish engagements on Syrian grounds. The reviving of the agreement would require that Turkey gives up on the parts of Syria its forces and currently occupy and continue to turkify. There are already low level contacts between Turkey and Syria on the ground, but the Turkish President Erdogan is not yet willing to go further. A new meeting in the Astana format between Turkey, Russia and Iran is supposed to take place on February 14. It might come up with a new solution.

In his Sunday interview with CBS President Trump again explained his position on the retreat. Asked about concern that the defeated ISIS might rise again should the U.S. move out he responded:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And you know what we'll do? We'll come back if we have to. We have very fast airplanes. We have very good cargo planes. We can come back very quickly, and I'm not leaving. We have a base in Iraq and the base is a fantastic edifice. I mean, I was there recently. And I couldn't believe the money that was spent on these massive runways. And these-- I've-- I've rarely seen anything like it. And it's there. And we'll be there. And, frankly, we're hitting the caliphate from Iraq and as we slowly withdraw from Syria. Now the other thing after this--

MARGARET BRENNAN: How many troops are still in Syria? When are they coming home?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Two thousand troops.

MARGARET BRENNAN: When are they coming home?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They are starting to, as we gain the remainder, the final remainder of the caliphate of the area, they'll be going to our base in Iraq. And, ultimately, some will be coming home. But we're going to be there and we're going to be staying--

MARGARET BRENNAN: So that's a matter of months?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have. But we're-- yeah, they will be coming back in a matter of time. ...

Trump's claim that there are only 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria shows that he apparently does not know what Pentagon is doing behind his back. He also has no idea of any real timeline for the retreat even as he continues to promote it.

Trump believes that he can keep troops in Iraq and use that country as a base against Iran:

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops [in Iraq] now?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --but when it was chosen-- well, we-- we spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable and expensive military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle East--
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --rather than pulling up. And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going to know it before they do.

That the U.S. plans to stay in Iraq to "watch Iran" was news to the president of that country:

Iraqi President Barham Salih said on Monday that President Donald Trump did not ask Iraq’s permission for U.S. troops stationed there to “watch Iran.”
“Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues,” Salih said. “The U.S. is a major power ... but do not pursue your own policy priorities, we live here.”
“It is of fundamental interest for Iraq to have good relations with Iran” and other neighboring countries, Salih said.

There are already moves underway in the Iraqi parliament to (again) kick the U.S. out of the country. The Sadr faction, the biggest one in parliament, is preparing legislation to achieve that. Other groups have threatened to use force to push the U.S. out. Back in December Elijah Magnier predicted that the U.S. would have either leave voluntarily or will be pushed out by force:

The Iraqi parliament can exert pressure over the government of Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi to ask President Trump to pull out US troops before the end of his mandate in 2020. The US establishment and the “Axis of the Resistance” can both connive and plan, but the last word will belong to the people of Iraq and to those who reject US hegemony in the Middle East, ..

Back to Syria. Idelb governorate continues to be the largest problem left in the receding war on Syria. It is ruled by the al-Qaeda aligned Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).


The Syrian military is waiting for orders to attack the enclave and is using artillery to 'soften up' the al-Qaeda positions near its lines. A new Bloomberg piece notes the contradiction in the argument of those who want the U.S. to stay in Syria because of ISIS. They never say a word about the much larger al-Qaeda force:

Islamic extremism in that war-torn country, runs their argument, is nowhere near as extinct as the President claims.

There’s plenty of evidence that the critics are right about that. But it doesn’t necessarily translate into a case for staying in Syria. Because US troops aren’t even marginally involved in the fight against the biggest remaining jihadi force there — which is al-Qaeda, not ISIS.
After eight years of civil war, the biggest chunk of jihadi-held territory in Syria now belongs to al-Qaeda, America’s original enemy in the global war on terror. Almost two decades after the September 11 attacks, the group’s Syrian affiliate has been on the march, seizing Idlib province in a dramatic advance last month. Its military strength is estimated to be in the tens of thousands, perhaps the largest concentration of armed jihadists ever assembled in one place.

But the US military isn’t fighting it — and isn't likely to, even if Trump were to abandon his plan to withdraw.

It will be Syrian, Russian and maybe some Iran supported forces that will have to clean up the mess the U.S. created by arming al-Qaeda. But they can only do so when their backs are not threatened by some new nefarious U.S. scheme. That the U.S. continues to supply dubious forces in the northeast, including with anti-tank weapons, increases the concern that Trump's repeated announcements of a retreat are not the last words spoken on that issue.

Posted by b on February 4, 2019 at 18:09 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Trump Says U.S. Will Leave But Pentagon Keeps Adding Forces
My guess is that the Syrian Kurds aren't very happy about this. They can't do much about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are demonstrations.

Posted by: Laguerre | Feb 5 2019 21:37 utc | 101

I am writing a message to direct everyone's attention to a document that 3 years ago could be found online at the Government Printing Office. It can no longer be found there and a reference at google books is neither downloadable or easily read. If someone can find it online I would greatly appreciate knowing. If not houlala there is another story here concerning online censorship.
This document is called "Central America report to the committee of Foreign Affairs House of Congress 1981" It is a report by a congressional fact finding mission ( Gerry Studds ) to El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. This document describes what the US trained and supported forces were doing to the inhabitants of El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. I believe it is particularly relevant now as the US attempts to install a coup government in Venezuela and brings back Eliot Abrams to oversee the butchery. I also think that maybe this might be used to spark a debate on whether the various jihadi groups such as ISIS and AlCIAda armed trained and provided with propaganda by the US, UK, EU, and the Gulf States are more or less debauched than the characters mentioned in this document.
According to this Congressional report the US trained and supported forces of El Salvador conducted a campaign of unmitigated violence ,terror, and horror. Here are some quotes. Forthwith " The Salvadoran method "of drying up the ocean" involves, according to those who have fled from its violence, a combination of murder, torture, rape ,the burning of crops in order to create starvation conditions and a program of general terrorism and harrassment." " Every person had a tale of atrocity by government forces, the same ones we are again outfitting with weapons."
The US trained and armed forces did such things as " children around the age of eight being raped, and then they would take their bayonets and make mincemeat of them "; " the army would cut people up and put soap and coffee in their stomachs as a mocking. They would slit the stomach of a pregnant woman and take the child out, as if they were taking eggs out of an iguana. That is what I saw." These are what the US trained and supported forces were doing in Central America to ensure the preeminence of capitalism.
The New York Times and the rest of US media (excepting The Cape Codder, the Boston Globe, and the radio station WMUA of Amherst Massachusetts) bravely supplied propaganda for this orgy of violence and its perpetrators by remaining silent about this congressional report. Gee who was it who said "The more things change the more they stay the same." Ahh Parmenides.
I'm presently too worked up to remain lurking and I hope this is not off topic ( but then again I may be relevant in that one can now compare past and present proxies of the US and its various vassals ).
another james

Posted by: james dinsmore | Feb 5 2019 21:50 utc | 102

Jr @ 99: Game, Set, Match..

Class, ALWAYS wins over "we the people" in today's America.

Posted by: ben | Feb 5 2019 21:52 utc | 103

Bevin @ 83:

He may have degrees from private universities in Venezuela and the US, and been schooled in insurrection regime-change tactics in Belgrade by OTPOR, but the one thing Juan Guaidó has yet to learn is that he is not indispensable and that he has a use-by date.

He cannot get a revolution going. The support from the general public he was expecting may never materialise. He has no backing (it seems) even from those more monied social classes he (and the US, and even we ourselves) expected to support him. The armed forces and most if not all of Venezuela's institutions have snubbed him. The government is preparing charges against him and it's only a matter of time before the judiciary signs off on them.

Guaidó may be hiding in a safe place known only to his US backers. They are itching to invade Venezuela directly or indirectly through proxies. They need an incident to give them that excuse. They don't care how much they have to lie about that incident.

Put their need and Guaidó's increasing irrelevance together, and Guaidó will soon have more education pouring out of an orifice he currently doesn't have.

Posted by: Jen | Feb 5 2019 22:35 utc | 104

@ Jen
He cannot get a revolution going.
Guaido is a new kind of revolutionary.
His latest tweet on his revolution (translation).

Approved Point!
National Strategy of Early Assistance to the Complex Humanitarian Emergency in Food and Health in its Phase 1. We will announce the processes step by step. The first actions are the collection centers in Colombia and Brazil . . .(yawn)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Feb 5 2019 22:47 utc | 105

@Posted by: james dinsmore | Feb 5, 2019 4:50:02 PM | 102

This site --

-- claims to have a list (accessible at the site) of 164 libraries that have copies of that report.

Sounds like something that certainly should be squirreled away in a good, safe place.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Feb 5 2019 22:55 utc | 106

Then there's this site --
with this message --

Central America, 1981 : report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives.
By Gerry E. Studds, 1951- William Woodward and United States. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mode of access: Internet
Topics: Military assistance, American
Publisher: Washington : U.S. G.P.O.,
Year: 1981
OAI identifier:
Provided by: University of Michigan Library Repository
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s): (external link) (external link) (external link)

Hope something in these two posts helps . . .

Posted by: AntiSpin | Feb 5 2019 23:01 utc | 107

If Trump is planning on moving the US from petrodollar hegemony to energy dominance like I think he is, then he will be pushing ahead to grab Venezuelan oil regardless of what anyone or any country thinks. the likes of Pepe Escobar think that Trump is unknowingly destroying the US dollar, but I think he is using the last of its power to move the US to energy dominance. If this is correct, then Trump and the US are already committed to the move and there is no turning back.
If the US can control Venezuelan oil, then middle east oil can be disrupted, leaving Asia (China being the main target) and Europe at the mercy of Russia and the US. This I believe is why Trump and Kissinger wanted Russia as an ally. Both Iran and Venezuelan oil are the primary targets, but if the US can't take control of the Iranian oil, they can take all middle east oil off the market if they control the Venezuelan oil. Most other oil in the America's is either under US control or controlled by US puppet regimes. There is African oil, but that is not enough to supply China and Europe, plus US has its forces all through Africa.
Trump has picked the Europeans correctly in gambling the last bit of power in the petro-dollar. They are like dogs that keep crawling back to their master every time they are kicked. They rolled over on the Iran Nuke deal and they are rolling over on Venezuela. In rolling over like that, unless the likes of Russia or China stop Trump's US, the US will continue controlling Europe through energy dominance for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 5 2019 23:04 utc | 108

In his latest, Magnier says:

"Iran to the Iraqis: do not attack US forces unless they refuse to withdraw following a parliamentary decision."

Further elaboration from article liked at tweet:

"Iraqi organisations – who fought ISIS for years, and share Iran’s goal of rejecting US hegemony in the region – threatened to attack US forces if they didn’t leave the country immediately. However, sources close to decision makers report that 'Iraqi groups are not expected to attack US forces immediately'.

"'Iran has asked all their friends in Iraq to refrain from attacking the US forces and instead to arm themselves with patience for the day when US forces refuse to leave if and when the Parliament approves a bill asking them to return home. Should this happen, US forces would be considered an occupation force, giving legitimacy for the Iraqi resistance to attain their goal', said the source."

If Trump refuses Iraq's demand to remove all US Stormtroopers, will the Green Zone be turned to rubble once the troops are forced to leave?

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 5 2019 23:06 utc | 109

Xīn Nián Kuài Lè!
Happy Chinese New Year to all!

Posted by: Jen | Feb 5 2019 23:20 utc | 110

I have found this account is good on Iraq. A couple of tweets.
22h22 hours ago
More TØM CΛT Retweeted TØM CΛT
President Barham Salih spoke on this subject actually, and then Parliament called for cancellation of the security agreement. Parliament themselves can't do anything about it so they'll pressure the National Security Council as part od taking action.
"As far as nuances are concerned Iraq is not party to Iranian conflict and this is the point. There isn't a rejection by Army commanders for the original training mission. Two completely different things"

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 5 2019 23:27 utc | 111

Peter @108--

The Energy Dominance Plan you're referring to, is that basically reflected in this Alastair Crooke item from 2018? If so, do you have a link to anything more recent?

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 5 2019 23:37 utc | 112

@ james dinsmore | Feb 5, 2019 4:50:02 PM | 102

Not sure if this will help:;view=1up;seq=1

Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Feb 5 2019 23:38 utc | 113

Posted by: Scotch Bingeington | Feb 5, 2019 12:27:39 PM | 82

So they (UK/US) developed an AWACS version that relayed all identifiable signatures on the ground to the less equiped IAF Gulfstreams that were data-linked with IDF/IAF command centers.
That would explain all the mil traffic patterns near Eastern Med shoreline inside international waters/airspace of the last 2 months.

Sheds new light in the downing of IL-20. It was probably messing with their resolutions. It might also suggest that Putin- Shoigu dispute was just a show.

Posted by: OSINT-suggests | Feb 5 2019 23:41 utc | 114

Jackrabbit 33
Hillary blew, you don't have to cover for her. She is hubris incarnate. Leave her to rot, do not excuse her.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Feb 5 2019 23:42 utc | 115

ben @103

Thanks. It's heartening to hear from those who 'get it'.

I guess I should let you and everyone know that I am not suicidal and am looking forward to enjoying a good long life with family and friends.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

I think it's worthwhile to reiterate my main thesis: USA Deep State belatedly recognized the challenge from Russia and China and has taken unprecedented steps to meet that challenge. Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 kicked-off the US response with a cryptic call for MAGA.

USA and its complicit allies lost the peace when they didn't welcome Russia into the West, and their greed and exceptionalist hubris caused them to fail to halt support for China's peaceful rise much earlier. That mistake may have been a blessing in disguise because it has allowed an opportunity for a multi-lateral world that might check elites of the most powerful nations/blocs.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 5 2019 23:48 utc | 116

Scanning through the last 50 posts or so that I just got to-- This thought pops into my head--
The fixed game of who is president is a nice little target for folks thinking that somehow someone else in that position would make things different.. So far I have seen zero actual evidence of any change in the way things have been going on through several of these presidents.
At home, or abroad. Actually at home is most likely getting worse for the average Joe.

Who cares who's president?

Posted by: arby | Feb 6 2019 0:31 utc | 117

Hans Kristensen

Interesting coincidence:

On 6 Feb, US scheduled to launch ICBM into Pacific h/t @AircraftSpots

On 6-8 Feb, Russia scheduled to launch ICBM into Kamchatka Peninsula h/t @KomissarWhipla

Unlikely to be timed, but still...

Happy Chinese new years day btw

Posted by: OSINT-suggests | Feb 6 2019 1:14 utc | 119

@53 Vote=consent
Please do not give your consent to the system humanity!

Posted by: Per/Norway | Feb 6 2019 1:32 utc | 120

arby @117--

General domestic and foreign policy directions haven't deviated much since 1978, or so it appears, but a closer look shows that really isn't the case. One major question looms: Why was it deemed necessary to conduct the 911 False-Flag? A secondary question along your line: Did it matter who was POTUS, Bush or Gore, when that occurred? Now we're looking back at 40 years of policies and the coming and going of 20 different congressional manifestations with different majorities and intents. IMO, it certainly mattered who acted as POTUS during that time period, particularly at its beginnings in 1978. And there're many longstanding political observers who'll argue Trump marks a big deviation between the Bush/Obama/Clinton direction. The Reagan/Bush victory over Carter/Mondale was just as shocking at the time as Trump's victory over Clinton and proved devastating for the lives of many living in Central America when the Outlaw US Empire was convicted of conducting State Terrorism.

So, closely review the history and you'll discover it does matter who occupies the Oval Office--and which party controls Congress.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 6 2019 1:42 utc | 121

That's an interesting theory. I remember the uproar from the contents of that laptop but nothing came of it publicly. At this point, nothing really surprises. As you said- could be.

I looked at your website and read some of your "rants". I'll be going back to read more. Thank you.

Posted by: mourning dove | Feb 6 2019 1:48 utc | 122

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have. But we're-- yeah, they will be coming back in a matter of time. ...

Great plan! Evacuate Israel, and then Syria.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Feb 6 2019 1:49 utc | 123

@89 jr... sometimes you get carried away in your passionate postion! you have mischaracterized montreal.. of that much is very clear!

@ 102 james dinsmore.. thanks for being thoughtful! i think the article @113 robert snefjella might be it.. i haven't checked @118 jens link...

happy chinese new year everyone at moa, especially you jackrabbit! the year of the pig - that coincides with the western zodiac sign scorpio.. it is a 12 year cycle like jupiter.. good year for making money apparently, especially for those born in the years of the rabbit, pig or goat...

Posted by: james | Feb 6 2019 1:54 utc | 124


mischaracterized montreal >>>>>> apologies if that's the case.

PS I'm passionate 'cause I think it explains a lot.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 6 2019 2:03 utc | 125

@ karlof1 who wrote:
So, closely review the history and you'll discover it does matter who occupies the Oval Office--and which party controls Congress.
I would posit that domestic policy is more affected by which party controls Congress. The war machine seems to not be as effected by change in parties of late

@ karlof1 who provided the Michael Hudson link (Church Times ..see upthread) where he calls out private finance for the evil I have written here that he never does.

I NOW AGREE that Mr. Hudson is actively calling out private finance and I thought it interesting that he did it in a challenge to the monotheistic religions to stop with the hypocrisy of support for private finance....thank you Mr. Hudson....I will start treating you better and encourage you to keep it up.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Feb 6 2019 2:04 utc | 126

Very close to what I am thinking. Though Crook may be thinking more along the lines of financial control of oil rather than physical control or physical destruction of oil not under US control.

This piece is my thought exactly, though Europe must be added.
"What would this Trump notion of energy dominance mean in simple language? The US – were energy dominance to succeed – simply would control the tap to the economic development – or its lack thereof – for rivals China, and Asia."

This is how I view Trump or beter put, how I think Trump views the world.
"The Schmittian optic, however dismissed derisively the liberal view, in favour of an emphasis on the role of power, pure and simple – based on a darker understanding of the true nature of ‘others’ and rivals. This point seems to go to the root of Trump's thinking:"

I believe this is the way Trump is heading,....
"Here then, is the squaring of that circle (more US power, yet less empire): Trump’s US aims for ‘domination’, not through the globalists’ permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can 'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony. Military conflict becomes a last resort."
....but this will be alongside physical control of a large part of available oil supplies. By this I mean that what can't be controlled must be taken off the market. Arab NATO attacking Iran would help accomplish that though those plans were I think shot down with the fallout of the Khashoggi killing.

Crook also mentioned the Judeo-Christian US nationalist aspect.
The group that any republican candidate must get the nod from to become the republican nominee is exactly that.
Council for National Policy was the last stop for all republican candidates in the primaries. This is one major US faction that is backing Trump. There is a news article from 2016 on the candidates having to convince the CNP board to be picked as nominee. it is a private hearing. I have put up links to it some months back.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 6 2019 2:16 utc | 127

james dinsmore & Robert Snefella

What a shame if that is the only online copy available, it's too blurry for me to read. I'll ask my local library if it might be available for inter-library loan. I'm interested to read it. Thank you.

Posted by: mourning dove | Feb 6 2019 2:18 utc | 128

Thanks also to Jen, that link might help with an inter-library loan.

Posted by: mourning dove | Feb 6 2019 2:22 utc | 129

@ psychohistorian | Feb 5, 2019 9:04:19 PM | 126
I would posit that domestic policy is more affected by which party controls Congress. The war machine seems to not be as effected by change in parties of late.

A lot of that is due to a lack of Congressional law-making when it comes to foreign policy. Many times we hear people who should know better: According to the Constitution the president makes foreign policy decisions, especially when war is concerned. But that's baloney, there is no such provision in the Constitution, and the presidents have no right to start wars and then depend upon the Congress to keep funding these wars "to support the troops."

The president is the government's executive, who (merely) executes and implements laws. There is no "executive privilege granted by the Constitution." None. That's wrong.

I'll go further, this war-making is what sustains presidents through the blood-letting of soldier sacrifices which sanctify the bloody foreign policy. It reminds me of the Aztecs with human sacrifices. The photo-op bedside visits make the whole rotten program holy, they believe. And the wars can't be stopped because the sacrifices have to be honored with more sacrifices of teen-age boys who get their legs blown off and die to "protect our freedom."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Feb 6 2019 2:47 utc | 130

@ mourning dove

There is a readable online copy here --;view=1up;seq=4

Posted by: AntiSpin | Feb 6 2019 3:52 utc | 131

Thanks for that but it's also too blurry for me. I'm on a crappy old phone and I can't download it because it requires permissions. I might be able to read it if I could download it and transfer it to my laptop, but my old eyes and a small screen, it's just a recipe for a migraine. I wanted to thank you for another link above, turns out that my local library has a copy. On a nice warm day I'll make it up there to read. I imagine I'll have to read it there, but that's no problem. Just waiting for the weather.
Thanks again

Posted by: mourning dove | Feb 6 2019 4:31 utc | 132

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 5, 2019 8:42:41 PM | 121

And there're many longstanding political observers who'll argue Trump marks a big deviation between the Bush/Obama/Clinton direction.

Like how, for example? I see that asserted a lot, most vehemently by TDS Demtards, but no one seems able to articulate specific deviations, let alone big ones. Certainly there's no deviation on foreign policy, for example. (North Korea? Trump's wasn't seeking peaceful co-existence, just continuing by other means the economic war whose goal is globalist subjugation.) And none on globalization - Trump didn't like the TPP simply because he personally doesn't like multi-lateral deals. He still wants the exact same aggressive corporate regimes, just on a bilateral basis.

Obviously nothing has changed domestically. There's only been some escalations and accelerations of the existing Clinton/Bush/Obama trajectory.

Posted by: Russ | Feb 6 2019 8:30 utc | 133

@Russ #4

Trump clearly is either lying (and bad at it) or is very confused. He can't even answer such easy questions (whether truthfully or not) without hemming and hawing all over the place.

This is a fellow who does not listen to his security briefings and seems shocked that they are different from what he sees on Fox news...

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 6 2019 9:06 utc | 134

It would be one thing to watch Fox News or whatever while thinking, "This is the version of reality I like and which I choose to act upon as if it were true", without actually "believing" it IS reality. If the latter describes Trump he really is snorting his own stuff.

(Although I'd be surprised if Trump's security briefings, or those of any other president, are any more reality-based. They may be different in some ways. Anyway, every type of chieftain always has been prone to banish anyone who insists on giving him a depiction of reality he doesn't like. It's funny how the elites often deplore cultural balkanization and how people seek out on the internet only the kind of political content they like. That's nothing but how elites always have acted. Once again it's only bad when the peasants do it.)

The people I know personally are more likely to watch CNN or MSNBC and read the NYT, and they all seem to really believe that really is reality, rather than an image of it they'd like to see be true. Therefore it's impossible to have any reality-based discussion or disagreement with them (back when I used to be masochistic enough to try; I haven't bothered in a long time). It's a kind of fundamentalism.

Posted by: Russ | Feb 6 2019 9:37 utc | 135

Karlofi @ 121
"Why was it deemed necessary to conduct the 911 False-Flag?"
I'm not sure why the PTB feels the need to convince us Prols that they are really good guys with honourable intentions but it seems they do.

A secondary question along your line: Did it matter who was POTUS, Bush or Gore, when that occurred? "

I doubt it.

Posted by: arby | Feb 6 2019 12:05 utc | 136

Notes found on twitter

#Bridge in #Cucuta area blocked by #Venezuela to prevent #USA "aid" to enter.

#Venezuela authorities discover #USA #Weapons cargo supply in #Valencia airport.
#USA weapons & equipment include: 19 rifles, 118 magazines, ammo, 6 mobile phones, 90 radios .
#Portuguese 8 Diplomatic Bags content is unknown but #Venezuela refused its entry

#Venezuela seizes ‘US weapons shipment’ as Trump vows to support ‘noble quest for freedom’

Posted by: arby | Feb 6 2019 12:32 utc | 137

Bevin @ 26 -

I don't understand what Trump is doing, I'm pretty certain that he doesn't have much of an idea either, but the key to the situation is Turkey. If Turkey will allow the US to stay in Syria it will be able to do so. So the question is what can the US offer Turkey to break with Russia and Iran?

I suspect that, apart from bribing corrupt officials, the answer is nothing. After all, though it doesn't always seem like it, Turkey is opposed to Israel and will not allow it to become the dominant regional power.

We are in agreement here regarding Erdogan, except for the fact the US stays only with his permission. That's laughable nonsense. Trump wants to leave, that much is clear and good about his foreign policy. And I believe the US will leave Syria but of course not Iraq. I said this right after the Turks stopped the Syrians from attacking in Idleb.

"Erdogan holds all the cards in Idleb".

I note, that contrary to many confident predictions of Russian military mastery and superiour equipment along with the Syrian army's supposed strength, neither Syria nor its controllers in the Soviet Military have risked an attack out of concern of a Turkish response.

The rest of your comment is just a refusal to admit your ideology blinds you from understanding real politik as it is practiced with varnish by Russia, Israel and Turkey, among others. Not that you are alone in this blind spot. It is wide enough to consume entire armies of blog commentators sometimes, especially those who seem to think Putin is a white knight of the roundtable.

Turkey is no more nor less attached to Russia than Israel is attached to Russia. They are doing business together is what you mean to say except because capitalism is evil (and Putin is not evil) you avoid making those connections.

In fact politically what you have in the ME is a circle jerk among regional powers where Russia has noticeably pushed Iran outside the circle currently inhabited by Turkey, Saudia and Israel. Perhaps Putin downplays Iran as part of his gentleman's secret agreement with Trump.

Posted by: donkeytale | Feb 6 2019 13:22 utc | 138

The solitary point that you make, after considerable preening, is that, in sharp contradistinction to 'ideologists' you have discovered -this might be the basis for an ideology itself- that states pursue their own interests.
This is not an original discovery.
Nor does it contradict my point which is that Israel represents, on several fronts, a peculiar challenge to Turkey: it is anti-islamic; it stands in the way of Turkish ambitions to dominate the Levant and it is a reminder that Turkey cannot make any alliance with the United States that does not include a caveat to the effect that Israel comes first.
As to ideology: are you sure that you are not enslaved by one? And all the more reduced by it because you refuse to recognise its mastery over you or its existence?
Incidentally the view that capitalism is an evil system does not lead to the view that those who think otherwise are themselves evil, they are usually simply ignorant or apathetic.
As to your assertion that the US will not leave Iraq, if you are right -that they will resist eviction orders- it will prove to be a major and continuing source of weakness, a bleeding wound. Or as it is more often called a quagmire.

Posted by: bevin | Feb 6 2019 15:22 utc | 139

Pearls were seriously clutched at Mourning Joe today as the pundits were all over Tulsi Gabbard about her visit to Syria. They stopped short, but barely, of asking whether she went to bed with Assad during her visit.

"Is he our enemy?" "No, well is he an adversary?" And of course the "poisoning of his people" was mentioned.

Already the MSM liberal position is that she is unfit by nature of being against Endless War.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Feb 6 2019 15:27 utc | 140

French MSM are speaking daily of the US removal of its troops and the danger it makes for French soldiers. Today's meeting is probably just about that. Maybe Trump heard about the Lafarge scandal and he did not want to be involved?

Posted by: Mina | Feb 6 2019 15:29 utc | 141

Seems like "his" generals are not listening. Will he even notice or even know about the troop increase? Unless Fox News (the Putin Network) shows it during executive time I seriously doubt he will. Sad that he fails to understand when he denigrates people in public he will reap what he sows, disrespect and deceit. A cowardly man who lives in fear of his narcism will never rise above self. How the moral arc of history allowed him to become president will forever change the office and the world for the worse. Happening right before your supporting eyes.

Posted by: rattlemullet | Feb 6 2019 15:59 utc | 142

A good rundown on the Economic history of Venezuela

Posted by: arby | Feb 6 2019 16:07 utc | 143

Very interesting commentary. And useful. I, for one, have lost touch with the prevailing
ethos; I'm always surprised to find that united states people are NOT as i remembered them.

Posted by: Guerrero | Feb 6 2019 16:35 utc | 144

Imho, chaotic econo-pol-soc landscapes which lead to unintended consequences, surprises, are underestimated.

Establishing rational explanations, reasons, post hoc, is tempting, yes, but maybe not super useful..

Trump had some powerful backers for sure (not that I can outline all that, see Adelson for ex. ..) otherwise he would never have been elected.

Killary was perhaps the weakest ‘serious, expected to win’ from polls, candidate ever, but as the top tin-pot *Queenie* kicking over the favored choice, Sanders, and having no plan, no campaign strategy, she merely hung around as an erstaz legacy pretender. (Possibly not wanting to win - I have read that Obama offered her the VP slot but she refused it.)

Spouting vapid self-glorification, and after defeat, the typical victim complaints and feeble attacks.

This was all, pretty much, imho, an internal DNC drama and had nothing to do with running the country or ‘doing good for the ppl’ .. Only with the extraction of kudos and profits in many hidden circuits, schemes, etc.

The Repubs similarly in the last election had no innovative pertinent proposals (policy), merely a plethora of predictable establishment ‘candidates’ stumping on the platform for media exposure, fame, local deals (Rubio, J. Bush, Carson, etc.)

The way was left open for anyone with Media Pull, and/or a willingness to win, here, Trump.

The US is run by a complex of oligarchic corporate interests. The ‘democracy’ coloring, the whole ‘official’ apparatus that attests to it, is a stage-play that is wearing thin. Yet is has to be maintained, as TV show for the plebs. So Trump vs. Sanders vs. Ocasio-Cortez vs. New Guy etc. is splashed about on the MSM 24/24 to distract.

Posted by: Noirette | Feb 6 2019 17:16 utc | 145

bevin - thanks for the interesting and valuable psychological evaluation. I'll be sure to bring your comment up to my cognitive behavioral analyst tomorrow afternoon.

Your artful put down is...whatever. Who cares.

States pursue their self interests regardless of ideology. I meant commenters' ideology but maybe bias is a better term.

Bias leads to some preening for sure but more to the point: inaccurate analysis.

Posted by: donkeytale | Feb 6 2019 17:16 utc | 146

Russ @135--

Bush/Obama/Clinton all tried to make Zionistan's Yinon Plan reality; Trump, although challenging Iran, has ceased trying. In Afghanistan, negotiations are happening between Taliban and Empire. Imran Khan has pulled Pakistan out from US orbit with no resistance put up by Trump whereas Bush/Obama/Clinton waged war on Pakistan. There's no longer any question of EU vassal status with Trump, nor does he seem to care much for NATO. The entire Pivot to Asia effort's been scuttled. Abe certainly knows Russia's conditions for consummating a Peace Treaty--the removal of all foreign military based in Japan--and continues to say he wants such a treaty--Trump's Trade War IMO has impelled Abe's change of mind. Of course, there's Trump's Trade War, which totally deviates from prior policy. Then there's the curiosity of what Alastair Crooke has called Trump's Energy Dominance Plan that Peter AU 1 and I've been somewhat discussing. Bush/Obama/Clinton were all about further expanding the Outlaw US Empire and attempting to fulfill the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. Crooke describes Trump's plan: "... he wants more power, but less empire."

Those are the primary deviations I see. IMO, Trump doesn't give a damn about the periphery of the Empire since he sees it as a drain and thus a waste of time to pursue, nor does he see geopolitics through the Great Game lens of his predecessors, despite his getting advice from Kissinger. And although his government's infested by them, Trump's not a member of the bipartisan War Party.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 6 2019 17:20 utc | 147

@arby 136

""A secondary question along your line: Did it matter who was POTUS, Bush or Gore, when that occurred? ""

"I doubt it."

Apologies for sliding more off-topic, but I have to chime in here.

I think it did matter which individual was president on 9/11. Bush was certainly not privy to the conspiracy. When the towers came down, he was still flying around like a disoriented bird because Cheney had called him out of the WH bunker to tell him *not* to return to D.C. This came alongside an alleged terror threat received by the White House, that "Air Force One is next" or, respectively, "Angel is Next", Angel being the codeword for AF1. Webster Tarpley describes this in detail in his book "9/11 Synthetic Terror".

The point ist, if Cheney belonged to the inner circle of the conspirators - which I personally don't doubt - he had to make sure the president (like everybody else) was under his control in the crucial hours after the attack. He knew Bush was a reliable coward.

So regarding 9/11, I think it wouldn't have happened with
another vice president, indeed.

Posted by: mk | Feb 6 2019 17:30 utc | 148

Believing Trump was not aware of troop increases in Syria especially now that Shanahan is Acting SoD is like believing Trump was telling the truth when he denied knowing his Attorney Cohen paid Stormy. He knew, and like Cohen, Shanahan had his blessing to act. You still believe that pathological liar, Trump?

Posted by: Circe | Feb 6 2019 17:48 utc | 149

Peter AU 1 @127--

Thanks for your reply! I don't think such a plan will succeed for several reasons. The primary energy needed for economic development is electricity that can be generated in a number of ways, not just via thermal plants burning fossil fuels--indeed, that method's being used less and less. Oil is primarily a transportation fuel where its share of use is declining at an accelerating pace. Crooke writes:

"In a speech 'that sought to underscore a break with the policies of Barack Obama', the FT notes, Mr Trump tied energy to his America First agenda...'The truth is we now have near limitless supplies of energy in our country,' Mr Trump said. 'We are really in the driving seat, and you know what: we don’t want to let other countries take away our sovereignty, and tell us what to do, and how to do it. That’s not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my administration will seek not only the American energy independence that we’ve been looking for, for so long – but American energy dominance,' he said."

First and foremost, the USA does not "have near limitless supplies of energy;" aside from solar, wind and geothermal, all energy sources are finite and limited by the energy return on investment whether the econo9mic system is capitalist or socialist. And we must be clear that Trump's talking petrochemical fuels with a bit of popcorn topping. Furthermore, the only time anything reaches "energy independence" is when it dies and no longer requires any; so, attaining "energy independence" is a fallacy, a chimera, a Red Herring.

Dominance denotes control. But the only energy source widely traded on exchanges open to being financially controlled is oil--not NatGas, not coal, not wind, not solar, not nuclear, not geothermal, not hydroelectric--and as noted reliance on oil as a transportation fuel's waning as is coal for electricity. How can any nation achieve energy dominance when the sources of energy are so varied and openly available?

Those are my initial critiques without having to dig into the facts and figures of production and usage. IMO, if trying to attain energy dominance is a Trump goal, he will fail as it's physically impossible.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 6 2019 17:55 utc | 150

> Who cares who's president?
>Posted by: arby | Feb 5, 2019 7:31:22 PM | 117

Exactly right. Electoral politics is Uncle Sam's Bread-And-Circus:

All New! And Improved! Now Without Bread!

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Feb 6 2019 18:05 utc | 151

mk @148--

Do you think Lieberman was to Gore as Cheney was to Bush? All the demo prep occurred during Clinton/Gore. Gore's pathetic performance regarding Florida vote and resulting Treason committed by Supreme Court making Bush/Cheney winners seems scripted. Deep State deemed Yinon Plan must be attempted plus the need to destroy the evidence of massive corruption deposited at WTC and Pentagon--the same underlying reason for the OKC bombing.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 6 2019 18:05 utc | 152

@karlof1 152

Lieberman indeed seems to have been installed in order to make sure a Gore administration wouldn't deviate too much from the desired course. The Florida vote looks scripted, but I don' think it was a slam dunk for the Republicans, luck was also on their side. Anyway, with Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz the most extreme branch of the Deep State usurpated power - the most aggressive rats in the sack. Under Gore/Lieberman, other rats would have maintained influence, surely, but maybe with other means than 9/11.

Posted by: mk | Feb 6 2019 18:37 utc | 153

Noirette @145: The way was left open for anyone with Media Pull, and/or a willingness to win

No. Not it was not happenstance as you suggest. The way was cleared for Trump who had media pull and a willingness to serve the Deep State.

Circe @149: ... is like believing Trump was telling the truth when he denied knowing his Attorney Cohen paid Stormy.

Yes! Even here people are blindsided by confirmation bias. Watch when they do, not what they say.


Turkey and USA have mutual interests. This is best seen with USA's threat to bomb Syria if SAA tries to re-take Idlib and the recent talks about Turkey replacing US troops in Northeastern Syria.

donkeytale is right to highlight cognitive bias. Confirmation bias led many to believe that Erdogan was "turning east" when he was simply playing a double game.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 6 2019 20:05 utc | 154


In looking at Trump, I am more looking at what his long term intentions and plans are rather than his ability to carry them through to fruition. A lesson I learnt from Erdogan was not to prejudge in this regard.
The world is moving to sources of energy other than oil, but I think for at least the next decade or two a number of countries can be held to ransom if their oil supplies are disrupted.

Energy independence or energy dominance. Page 22 of Trump's 2017 National Security Strategy clearly states energy dominance. The section is title "Embrace Energy Dominance".

The fracking boom may well be short lived but I think Kissinger and Trump are using this respite in oil imports to try and set up the US in a dominant position for the next decades, in the same way Kissinger and Nixon used the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay to set up the petro-dollar which has carried the US through as the dominant power until now.
Trump and Kissinger depart from realism when it comes to Israel. That is pure religion, and for the judeo-christians very similar to the catholic crusades of old.

I looked up US voting patterns by religion yesterday and if Pew research center statistics are correct, then the US is a country that votes predominantly according to religion.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 6 2019 20:13 utc | 155

@Peter AU 1 | Feb 5, 2019 6:04:45 PM | 108

If the US can control Venezuelan oil, then middle east oil can be disrupted, leaving Asia (China being the main target) and Europe at the mercy of Russia and the US.

You forgot Iran as a major oil supplier. Of course, if Iran has been as thoroughly nuked as you want, it will not be important anymore.

Posted by: Cyril | Feb 6 2019 20:15 utc | 156

@125 jr... thanks jackrabbit!

143 arby... that is a good twitter thread that person did, to oversee what venezuala has had to deal with up to the present..

@156 cyril.. that is it in a nutshell and why the usa-israel is intent on containing iran..just like they are putting the boots to venezuala here.. it is pathetic.. ps cyril - you are reading peter au completely wrong to suggest he wants iran nuked.. you have to dig that up from last summer, lol...

Posted by: james | Feb 6 2019 20:24 utc | 157

@arby | Feb 6, 2019 7:32:59 AM | 137

#Bridge in #Cucuta area blocked by #Venezuela to prevent #USA "aid" to enter.

Meanwhile, China sends a hospital ship to Venezuela.

I would not be surpised to learn that the ship also delivered huge amounts of medical supplies. (Looks like a pretty big ship.)

#Venezuela authorities discover #USA #Weapons cargo supply in #Valencia airport.
#USA weapons & equipment include: 19 rifles, 118 magazines, ammo, 6 mobile phones, 90 radios .
#Portuguese 8 Diplomatic Bags content is unknown but #Venezuela refused its entry
#Venezuela seizes ‘US weapons shipment’ as Trump vows to support ‘noble quest for freedom’

As I expected, Guano's "humanitarian" caravans are 5% for saving people and 95% for killing people.

Posted by: Cyril | Feb 6 2019 20:59 utc | 158

Peter AU 1 @155--

Thanks again for your reply! Seems I overlooked that document. In the section you pointed to is the definition of Energy Dominance for the paper's purpose:

"America’s central position in the global energy system as a leading producer, consumer, and

Further reading that section, it becomes clear Trump didn't write it: Too many references to the environment, clean energy sources, and climate to make him author. Here's a key fallacy:

"Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels,..."

As previously stated, electricity is the primary driver for economic development and doesn't require fossil fuels to be generated, although a small amount is required in support of generation infrastructure.

I didn't read much differing from current policy direction. Certainly nothing about using energy as a weapon, although Trump's using it as a Trade War tool. Lots of contradictions, too: Trump wants to promote overseas sales of energy related equipment but seems to worry more about technology transfer--legal or illegal. What's more, such a policy would need to be implemented by private companies having differing interests from the government and have already objected to Trump's trade policy.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 6 2019 21:10 utc | 159

By totally dismissing trump's NPR, by totally dismissing the fact that US have commenced production of small warheads with the goal of producing enough for an operational capacity in six months, by totally dismissing the fact that Raytheon has build a new missile plant that is ready or near ready for production of new missiles, you are showing yourself to be an uninformed fool.
Perhaps trump will never use the new rules of engagement that he wanted in the NPR. Perhaps he will never use the new warheads that he wanted. Perhaps he will never use the new missiles that he wanted.
But perhaps we should also look at the dangers of if he intends to use all this stuff and where. Then again we could all say Trump is just all bluster and he will never use them, that way if perchance he does use them, we can all hold our hands to our cheeks and say "who would've guessed" then continue crapping on about the evils of the US without actually trying anylize their moves motives and intentions.

What I put up is my thoughts on what I believe Trumps intentions are. I do not try to ram it down peoples throat using bold or getting angry about it.
If it offends you, then stick your head back in your arse where it usually resides and you won't be offended by my take on what Trump is up to.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 6 2019 21:19 utc | 160

@Peter AU 1 | Feb 6, 2019 4:19:09 PM | 160

By totally dismissing trump's NPR, by totally dismissing the fact that US have commenced production of small warheads with the goal of producing enough for an operational capacity in six months, by totally dismissing the fact that Raytheon has build a new missile plant that is ready or near ready for production of new missiles, you are showing yourself to be an uninformed fool.

I didn't say that. I said only that you want to nuke Iran. And I have your words to prove it.

You've been saying for years that "US wants energy dominance", but I think you really have the Zionist meaning in mind: "USA must destroy Iran at no cost to Israel".

Posted by: Cyril | Feb 6 2019 21:38 utc | 161

@161 cyril.. you are reading peter au completely wrong.. why don't you just drop it? both of you offer good insights for moa fwiw..

Posted by: james | Feb 6 2019 22:22 utc | 162

@49 Paveway IV.

Hello,Paveway,you just showed your self being guilty of not being aware of a Frank Zappa song,from the album "Zoot Allures" (1976)by the name of 'The torture never stops" which at the time I felt spoke about torture in south america,but reading its lyrics now I don't find any pointing to a specific countryIn 1973 there was of course Allende-Pinochet swap, still fresh in the memory abroad,specially in South America,and if ever was mention in the press of torture,it was in those spanish speaking indian folk countries,El Salvador,Guatemala,Nicaragua,.I hope you may prefer this song to hillbilly music,which can be very enjoying also,especially after listening to the following:

Interesting enough there's a phrase "Fifty hill billy soldiers man holdin' spears by the iron door" ,that would mean american soldiers,I guess.Do you speak of hillbillies in other countries?

Posted by: willie | Feb 6 2019 22:43 utc | 163

'The torture never stops" which at the time I felt spoke about torture in south america,but reading its lyrics now I don't find any pointing to a specific countryIn 1973 there was of course Allende-Pinochet swap, still fresh in the memory abroad,specially in South America,and if ever was mention in the press of torture,it was in those spanish speaking indian folk countries,El Salvador,Guatemala,Nicaragua,.I hope you may prefer this song to hillbilly music,which can be very enjoying also,especially after listening to the following:

Original version of The Sentiments of the Nation, the classical political text
of Jose Maria Morelos, read by his secretary at the opening of the Independence Congress
in Chilpancingo, Guerrero on the 14th of septiembre of 1813.

15º. Que la esclavitud se proscriba para siempre y lo mismo la distinción de castas, quedando todos iguales, y sólo distinguirá a un mexicano de otro el vicio y la virtud.

17º. Que a cada uno se le guarden sus propiedades y respete en su casa como en un asilo sagrado, señalando penas a los infractores.

18º. Que en la nueva legislación no se admita la tortura.

Posted by: Guerrero | Feb 6 2019 23:47 utc | 164

12º. Que como la buena ley es superior a todo hombre o mujer, las que dicte nuestro Congreso deben ser tales, que obliguen a constancia y patriotismo, moderen la opulencia y la indigencia, y de tal suerte se aumente el jornal del pobre, que mejore sus costumbres, alejando la ignorancia, la rapiña y el hurto.

Posted by: Guerrero | Feb 6 2019 23:54 utc | 165

The last few years of the Obama administration, I often had a mental picture of Obama and Kerry sneaking around doing their stupid shit, and Putin, without bothering to look up from reading the morning paper, would put out his foot and Obama and Kerry would be a tangled heap on the ground. Other than danger of those types launching mutually assured destruction out of sheer stupidity and nastiness, any other danger they posed running around trying to prop up the crumbling petro dollar and annoying Russia was only worthy of contempt. There was not underlying strategy to look into or see if it could pose a danger.

Trump is a different species of snake, many unknowns, yet rather than observing this snakes movements, many hold any dangers he may pose in contempt without actually checking to see how dangerous this snake may become.

There were a few rules and norms associated with the petro dollar. Soft power, discreet arm twisting and water boarding of so called allies, and after the fall of the soviet union, destruction of any country that did not trade oil with the petrodollar.

Now there are no rules. No soft power. Waterboarding of allies, as US terms its vassals, is public. "be a good dog and do as we say or we will sanction you".

It is now a game completely without rules. No holds barred.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Feb 7 2019 0:36 utc | 166

Peter AU 1--

The USA has always gone by George Washington's maxim of not engaging with "entangling alliances" lest the government's ability to act unilaterally be restricted. That's the primary reason why the Senate refused to ratify the treaty to become a member of the League of Nations. IMO, the only reason for entering into the various Geneva Conventions is that they were seen as advantageous for the US Military. Otherwise, almost every US Treaty is bi-lateral, usually with the USA having some dominant positioning as with the "Loan Treaties" that became known as Dollar Diplomacy. Ratification of the UN Charter changed the entire nature of the USA's ability to act unilaterally--it now had to do so covertly in a deniable fashion, and did as soon as it could. Arms control treaties work in a similar manner to restrain unilateralism.

But there is another voice; it can be found within the Declaration of Independence related to the global opinions of humanity at large. I see it as the moral restraint on evil actions and is the only reason I can think of as to why the USA didn't massively nuke the USSR before 1949--it certainly made plenty of devastating plans to do so. But the moral inhibitor finally failed to act in an escalating fashion as the CIA gained ever more power and sense of invincibility as it clearly violated the UN Charter in 1953&54 in tandem with its UK partner. Real boldness came not soon after with a series of assassinations of world leaders, including the UN Sec Gen and JFK. At that point, I'd say there were no more rules/constraints.

In my historical research, I asked this basic question: Has the USA always been the Outlaw US Empire ever since I was born in 1955? The answer is a resounding Yes, quite unfortunately. You're not altogether incorrect; rather, the USA has always preferred to operate in a rules-free environment going back to its inception. Just look at the lies and myths generated to paint the picture of innocence and benevolence to cover for the crime of genocide against Natives and Africans. I was trained to help perpetuate that mask via schoolroom indoctrination, but I knew the truth and refused to participate in continuing the lies--I taught the truth as long as I was allowed, which was only 5 years. Fortunately, more people are aware of the Truth than I knew initially, and more continue to find it; but our voices are still drowned out by BigLie Media. I know you face a somewhat differing set of challenges in Australia. But it's not in our being to surrender to such evil; so, we fight it however we can!

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 7 2019 1:30 utc | 167

karlof1 147

We may have differently set bars for what's a real deviation, but most of those look to me like adjustments of tactics rather than any change in overall strategy or even operational goals. Plus some of them look like the inadvertent incompetence I was expecting when I preferred Trump over Hillary. I don't think Trump is any less ardent a Zionist than his predecessors, he's just less sober on how to go about it.

Bush/Obama/Clinton were all about further expanding the Outlaw US Empire and attempting to fulfill the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. Crooke describes Trump's plan: "... he wants more power, but less empire."

Everything I see is that Trump has the same ongoing goal but isn't as disciplined or as willing to obey his "experts". Thus we have the absurd spectacle of Trump constantly being publicly at odds with his own administration - but the record of action is that he doesn't fundamentally differ with the neo-cons.

And the guy who would say something like "we just spent all this money to build this nice base, so we should hang onto it", redolent of "what's the use of this military if we're not going to use it", doesn't sound like the feelings of someone who wants less empire. (For those enamored of the notion that government should be run like a business, and therefore it's good to elect a businessman president, well a good businessman understands the rule about not throwing good money after bad, and therefore wouldn't judge an imperial position based on how much it already cost to construct it. But an ardent imperialist sure would.)

If Trump doesn't like NATO, why is he using it to try to provoke (or "accidentally" cause) WWIII by carrying out deliberately provocative exercises right on the Russian border?

(I don't know if Trump or the Demtards "really" want nuclear war. I do know that both are willing to run every risk of it for the sake of objectively stupid goals, Trump to press Russia for the sake of pressing it, Dembots solely out of personal hatred for Trump. Ironically they reach the same position of wanting to ratchet up the second cold war to as hot as possible.)

Posted by: Russ | Feb 7 2019 6:06 utc | 168


For emphasis:

[only] adjustments of tactics ... Trump has the same ongoing goal [Empire First]

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Feb 7 2019 16:24 utc | 169


Why is congress allowing the continual buildup of military forces in Syria for an oil pipeline for Wall Street, assisting a coup in Venezuela to have Wall Street acquire control of their oil and gold sources, and continuing the occupation of Afghanistan for the growth of opium---among many other examples ? The death of our sons and daughters for world domination, and the fiscal destruction of our nation, are not justified to satisfy the economic objectives of Wall Street.

When I see that congress understands and investigates how the Federal Reserve is used by Wall Street to embezzle trillions of dollars from the people [via government] (Ref. , and how the fraudulent income tax is perpetuated on an uninformed citizenry (, then I will believe congress is not a disguised deep state minion and extorting the public by taxation and inflation to secure an affluent life style for themselves.

Your constituent,

Posted by: olde reb | Feb 7 2019 16:56 utc | 170

Russ @168--

Bush said: "Either you're with us; or you're against us" as he framed the sides for the Hybrid Third World War he was about to launch. Obama tried to mask the project as just the Outlaw US Empire's by his "leading from behind" approach which fooled nobody. Now we have Trump's MAGA which furthers Bush's maxim while Trump condemns it. A vainglorious attempt was made to try and deter Russia and China from challenging the Outlaw US Empire's Unipolar aspirations, but its every move merely confirmed to Russia and China the correctness of their actions. In its attempt to enslave the world, the Outlaw US Empire has naturally caused a global crisis not seen since the 1930s. The rest of my current thoughts I've posted on the next thread. The problem of what to do with the Outlaw US Empire has been with the world since its overt lawbreaking began in the late 1940s--the refusal to properly hold the UN-Mandated elections in Korea that led to the Korean War. The seeming inability of the world to discipline the continuous lawbreaker has led us to the crisis we have today. Being held hostage by a nuclear armed monster is 100% unacceptable for the entire world--even the Empire's domestic populous. IMO, we need to cease quibbling about how/who generated the crisis and figure out a way to solve it in the least damaging manner as possible.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 7 2019 18:15 utc | 171

karlof1 says:

The seeming inability of the world to discipline the continuous lawbreaker has led us to the crisis we have today

i suppose when, in 2012, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission convicted Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo for war crimes, there was much chuckling and snickering in Washington D.C.…

i'm not a vengeful person, karlof1, but nonetheless i'm pretty sure that any road to reconciliation in america is contingent on these perps being stripped of every asset and marched off to Leavenworth for the remainder of their days.

only then might the american people begin to comprehend the errors of their ways.

Posted by: john | Feb 7 2019 21:28 utc | 172

john @172--

As the promotion of the war criminal Abrams demonstrates, there're still many criminal around from that era's illegalities and bloodletting. Why just begin with BushCo when every known violator ought to be arrested, tried and imprisoned until they die. They number in the thousands! But even to arrest those needing arresting, the commonfolk still need to gain control of the government so it cannot continue to protect those criminals. Without control of the federal government, no realistic attempt to provide justice can be launched.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 7 2019 23:03 utc | 173


yeah, i didn't express myself adequately. my indictment is certainly not reserved for the few names mentioned above, though i believe they're the only ones to have actually been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law, albeit in absentia.

my point is that someone has to go down for these crimes. someone major. in my view it's a necessary catalyst...i mean, can you imagine the imagery of say, a shackled Obama wearing an orange jumpsuit being marched off to sing sing for the rest of his days(as opposed to the reality of the fucker grinning from ear to ear with some multi million dollar book deal)? i think such an event would be psychologically devastating to most Americans, but that such self-criticism is necessary to open the collective psyche to a new world order where American exceptionalism is dead and gone.

Without control of the federal government, no realistic attempt to provide justice can be launched

ostensibly, the military could do it.

Posted by: john | Feb 8 2019 10:59 utc | 174

@174 john - "..the military could do it."

Duterte of the Philippines has just made that recommendation to his own military. He's essentially telling them that the next time they feel impelled to throw out the current political leaders in a coup, do it right next time and don't just replace one hack with another. Make a clean sweep, and here's the way to do it, says Duterte:
Staging a coup? Get rid of ALL politicians & kill new leaders who ‘f*** up’ – Duterte to troops

I was very impressed with this concept and thought about sharing it last night. Since your discussion with karlof1 went into that territory, it seems useful. Duterte is a smart leader with a difficult task. I think he's quite serious with his remarks here.

The military could do it, in any country. And Duterte's formula could enforce a more democratic rule of law than the current systems of sham democracy.

Posted by: Grieved | Feb 8 2019 14:46 utc | 175

Grieved @175 & john @174--

Yes, as I've harped about occasionally regarding the oath we military took to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, sure, the military ought to do it as it's their oath/duty to do so!!! But the only time that idea was put forth in the movie Seven Days in May, it was the president who was deemed to be the traitor because he sought peace with the USSR--exactly the opposite of what's now required. Look at the nature of the General Officers we've recently had paraded in front of us. Of them all, only General Flynn was in any way honest when he admitted it was the USA that created Daesh/ISIS. But did he act of what he knew and what his duty via his oath told him he ought to do? Other than ensuring what he said became public, Flynn did zero, zip, nada, and as such became a traitor himself. The same can be said of Congresscritters who don't do their duty to impeach officials having committed high crimes and misdemeanors, like with Pelosi's "Impeachment's off the table" regarding Bush/Cheney waging aggressive war against Iraq in 2003. She, too, is a Traitor.

I've yet to question her about it, but Tulsi Gabbard is the only member of Congress doing any sort of principled push-back related to her oath as both soldier and Congresswoman.

When putting forth the idea that the military ought to do its duty, just how much/many will be needed to do the job? Remember you'll need to neutralize the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, ATF, DEA, DHS, and who knows how many other armed entities who might be called upon to defend the traitors against the patriots--AND--you'll need to keep your plans secret until you're ready to act. It's easy to write a sentence; doing the deed's far more complex and extremely dangerous.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 8 2019 18:14 utc | 176

karlof1 says:

It's easy to write a sentence; doing the deed's far more complex and extremely dangerous

obviously, but then, i didn't take an oath.

perhaps the bottom line is the question of how much yearning is there anyway for anything other than our sham democracy?

Posted by: john | Feb 8 2019 18:39 utc | 177

john @177--

Let me ask you john; are you a citizen of the USA? If yes, then you have a vested interest in how the nation performs--an interest that ought to be as binding as any oath you might commit to. By way of example, here's something every naturalized citizen must pledge to upon passing the Citizenship Test, Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." [My Emphasis]

Can you in any way argue that a naturalized citizen ought to be more faithful to the US Constitution than a natural born citizen? Were you even aware of this oath or that naturalized citizens must make it?

Given the content of the Presidential oath of office, of the Congressional oath, of the military oath, and of the naturalized citizen oath, I believe we can construct what it the fundamental responsibility is for every citizen of the USA: To defend the Constitution of the USA from all enemies foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to that Constitution. Given all that, where does the ultimate responsibility lie for "our sham democracy?

Too bad none of the above is taught in High School Civics or Collegiate survey Political Science classes. We might then have a better performing government that obeys its fundamental law and doesn't create chaos and terror globally as its usual function.

And in respect to john, the above isn't meant to be directed only at him. Rather, it's a scathing indictment of all my fellow American citizens, myself included.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 8 2019 19:36 utc | 178


i'm natural born, i didn't sign nuthin'.

but chill out, dude, i never said it's all YOUR fault. why just the other day i read about some guy in India who's suing his parents for having him without his consent.

Posted by: john | Feb 8 2019 21:18 utc | 179

john @179--

Thanks for your reply. I moved this discussion to the open thread if you care to follow it further.

Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 8 2019 21:57 utc | 180

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.