RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

'As Hillary Clinton was widely quoted as saying recently, "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle."' William Boardman, RSN

President Obama will lay out his plan for ISIS. (photo: Getty Images)
President Obama will lay out his plan for ISIS. (photo: Getty Images)


Washington's ISIS War Drums: Do Stupid Stuff, Do It Now!

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

10 September 14

 

“Hopefully we get it more right than wrong” – organizing principle?

s Hillary Clinton was widely quoted as saying recently, “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

Maybe others have pointed out that this is a pretty stupid statement, but that’s far from the conventional wisdom. Think about the levels of stupidity here. Only “Great nations?” What, small nations don’t need to get their acts together? And who says the United States is a “great” nation, and in what sense is it great, and isn’t spouting a version of the American exceptionalism cliché just another way of doing stupid stuff? As organizing principles go, “Don’t do stupid stuff” is a great place to start. Then all you need to do is figure out what’s stupid and don’t do it: like not voting for war in Iraq in 2002.

What does the aspiring President Clinton offer for her own organizing principle? In her book Hard Choices, she writes: “Making policy is a balancing act. Hopefully we get it more right than wrong.” That means even less than “Don’t do stupid stuff.” That pretty much means: “We’re bound to do stupid stuff but we hope we won’t do too much stupid stuff.”

Of course that makes good political sense coming from the woman who, as Senator Clinton, voted to go to war in Iraq. As if that weren’t totally knowable, in advance, as doing stupid stuff, really stupid stuff. That vote was a clever trap for intimidated Democrats, afraid to stand up to stupid stuff. Senator Clinton was not alone in that rush to war. She, along with Senators Kerry, McCain, Biden, Hagel, McConnell, Reid, and 70 other senators, voted to support the administration lying us into that war on transparently dishonest evidence. It’s kind of cute, in a darkly disastrous way, that these same wrong-headed people are again among those braying most loudly for more war now. It makes a sort of amoral sense, since today’s mess is a continuation of the war they voted for because they presumably didn’t think it was stupid stuff that would last more than a decade.

“Hopefully we get it more right than wrong” unsupported by the stats

As an Illinois state senator in 2002, Obama came out forcefully and publicly against the Iraq war in a Chicago speech nine days before the U.S. Senate voted. He campaigned in 2008 against getting into stupid wars. He demonstrated how little he understood his own principle by defending (and later enlarging) the war in Afghanistan as a smart war. As Hillary says: “Hopefully we get it more right than wrong.” The scoreboard does not offer encouragement.

With all that in mind, here are some vagrant thoughts about what “Don’t do stupid stuff” might mean in some parts of the world these days, where smart options are few and far between:

IRAQ. Backing the unreliable, probably unstable Baghdad government is moderately stupid, but probably necessary in current circumstance. Baghdad is in a bind that will only get worse if we just leave it alone: to fight ISIS, Baghdad might need to rely on Iran, which would not only annoy the U.S., but might make the Sunni part of Iraq determinedly independent-minded. This box is the one Baghdad built for itself (with U.S. help, to be sure), but consequences belong to them. The Baghdad third of Iraq is not vital to American interests, it’s hardly vital to Kuwaiti interests, so don’t do something more stupid than the present tenuous balancing act. Keep an eye on the exit.

NORTHERN IRAQ. Bombing ISIS in the vicinity of the Mosul Dam is not so stupid, but only in the short term. Losing control of the huge dam would endanger everything downstream even more than now. Killing some ISIS fighters at a distance isn’t likely to annoy much of anyone except the ISIS fighters. Also it helps with defending the Kurds and it helped the Yazidis, all plus marks.

KURDISTAN. Supporting Kurdistan is not so stupid now, but could turn out to be stupid in the long run, not that anyone can know from here (can they?). The current Kurdish state gives the impression of actually being a functioning, non-sectarian, tolerant, quasi-democratic state with its more primitive cultural id reasonably under control for the moment, especially compared to its neighbors. And Kurdistan has some oil. And Kurdish independence is annoying to Turkey and Iran.

TURKEY. Annoying Turkey is probably stupid, but also inevitable if we follow any sort of sensible course in the region. Turkey has been annoying others for years now, so it deserves to be annoyed in turn. Just the wide-open Turkish-Syrian border is annoying enough to deserve response, since that open border has been critical to the growing strength of ISIS, which some Turkish fundamentalists (like the prime minister?) see as a good thing when it’s going against Damascus and Baghdad, but pretty much not such a good thing if ISIS comes after Ankara (and why wouldn’t it, if it could, which it can’t?). Turkey, like Baghdad, has been playing an ugly, deadly game, and bailing Turkey out of its own mess would be really, really stupid unless it came with serious changes, in advance. Not gonna happen any time soon.

EASTERN SYRIA. Bombing ISIS in Syria is clearly stupid from the perspective of international law, but maybe not so stupid militarily if managed carefully (surgical strikes and all that other imaginary stuff). Something one might call “incursive bombing” on either side of the largely meaningless Syria-Iraq border could be helpful in buying time for whatever alternative forces may remain deserving of support (including the Kurds). “Incursive bombing” would need sensible targets (OK, name one!) and would have to be designed not to prop up President Assad any more than would be inevitable. The U.S. has already bombed the region 145 times, by its own count (all supposedly on the Iraq side of the border). The U.S. plans to go right on bombing indefinitely. Syria is bombing ISIS on the Syrian side of the border, so if the U.S. incursive bombing spreads, U.S. bombers will have to avoid running into Syrian bombers. Is there any evidence this isn’t really stupid stuff in the making?

SAUDI ARABIA AND QATAR. Giving the Saudis and Qataris a free pass is truly, truly stupid. But it’s been American policy for decades, not just when mostly Saudis attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11 only to have President Bush let all the Saudis in the U.S. get a free pass home without even a chat with the FBI. The Saudis and Qataris, officially and unofficially, helped nurture ISIS into its present ugly self. ISIS is their neighbor now. Let them take the lead in policing their own neighborhood. After all, they’re already police states.

CENTRAL SYRIA. President Obama came close to doing stupid stuff when he floated the idea of bombing Syria after the gas attack in Damascus, but the Congress and most Americans had no stomach for that, and then Russia came to the rescue, and now Syria’s chemical weapons have been removed. Moral: if you threaten to do stupid stuff, maybe it will scare people enough so you end up accidentally doing something smart instead. Just don’t count on it.

IRAN AND ISRAEL. The U.S. policy of doing exceedingly stupid stuff in the bookends of the region is more than half a century old and intractable to the point of near-permanence. U.S. policy and behavior reinforces the maddest factions on both countries. And this stupid stuff fosters the other stupid stuff we do in between, although that’s stupid stuff we might minimize if not avoid.

There’s a pattern here: doing nothing is frequently the least stupid option. And there’s a smart part to doing nothing: accountability. Too many elements from Tel Aviv to Teheran count on the U.S. to be there in time of need, as either the Great Savior or the Great Satan. That’s what makes the U.S. the “indispensible nation,” which is also stupid stuff in which too many take false pride. Our role, as inconsistent and ineffective as it is historically, has the unfortunate consequence of allowing both friends and enemies to evade responsibility for their own circumstances.

Maybe the stupid stuff has a smart lining of sorts

And now President Obama is doing it again, with this new coalition of European participants and Middle Eastern camp followers. This is stupid stuff, when you find yourself having to coerce the people you’re supposedly saving to join in together in support of their own salvation.

This is stupid stuff, pretending ISIS is a threat to much of anyone but those next door. ISIS comprises some 10,000 fighters, not much more. Their strength comes mostly from present alliances with Iraqi Sunnis embittered by Baghdad and quite ready to have a state of their own with no ISIS involvement, should the opportunity arise.

This is stupid stuff, starting a new long war for the next president to manage. (It’s also smart, sweet, ironic, and cold-blooded payback that once again victimizes innocent, irrelevant parties.)

This is stupid stuff, but maybe not as stupid as the stuff the previous president pulled off, with bi-partisan support. On the other hand, taking the war deeper into the heart of the Middle East has apocalyptic potential.

This is stupid stuff, but maybe not as stupid as the stuff the war drum bangers charging toward the gates of hell would have the country do. But we might expect more from leadership than managing to do less stupid stuff than the hopefully-we-get-it-right crowd.

According to most reports, ISIS is widely hated in the Arab world. Assuming that’s true, the smart thing would be to offer to help them if they ever get around to wanting to fight ISIS rather than playing ISIS off against other enemies. We could wait a long time for that. And that’s a good thing.

The president’s plan to fight ISIS is stupid stuff in another way: it’s hardly adequate to the over-stated task. But that’s a smart thing about the stupid stuff. The hyper-rhetoric revives what’s left of patriotic flag-rallying around a White House whose party faces an election potentially more devastating than any proposed attack on ISIS. So the ISIS-fever, to the extent the president and his surrogates can generate it, seems likely to help Democratic candidates, at least to the extent that “fighting terror” drives other issues out of the news. Since those Muslims are going to be killing each other anyway, why shouldn’t they die to preserve a Democratic majority in the Senate?

And there’s another possibly smart move inherent in this stupid stuff over ISIS. The bloody bone of bombing and expanded killing in Iraq distracts the warrior class from its frothing over Ukraine, where they’ve been pushing for doing stuff that risks being existentially stupid.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-4 # politicfix 2014-09-10 10:59
Stop calling this ISIS. It's ISIL. Isis is a goddess. This country couldn't lend support if their life depended on it and it did on 911. President Obama is the President right now and he needs support from everyone instead of all this rhetoric. If you have something important to say to him John Boehner and Mitch McConnell that will be of benefit to this country to it personally and not whine and sniffle about every single comment and decision the President makes to anyone who will listen to you. The Republican party has been the Complainers-in- chief and are nothing but an embarrassment to this country. Have some dignity that is supposed to be attached to your office. Be professional and work toward solutions rather than being known as ignorant, selfish, greedy touts. You weaken America when we all don't stand together in the face of the rest of the world.
 
 
+26 # jsluka 2014-09-10 13:41
A Google search seems to indicate that ISIS is correct, and stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Most observers, such as NBC News, use the ISIS acronym, whereas the Obama admnistration prefers the ISIL one because they don't want to name Syria which is a country they don't want to get involved in at this time. On the politics of the acronym, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/
 
 
+23 # WBoardman 2014-09-10 14:05
jsluka partly answers politifix re ISIS/ISIL.
If one goes by what thoe people now call themselves, it"s IS.
My choice was to go with ISIS mostly because I assume
it's the most recognizable, and also because is sounds better.

IS Caliphate would probably be the most accurate for
the moment, but heads would need scratching.

As for "supporting" the president, that's fine and dandy if
he does the right thing, which is next to nothing.
Otherwise it's a fool's errand that we've taken before
in Viet-Nam and Iraq and Afghanistan....

Then there's the difficulty in working toward solutions
before clearly defining the problem.
 
 
+12 # curmudgeon 2014-09-10 15:32
Don't forget fool's errand Ukraine...
 
 
+10 # Khidr 2014-09-10 17:09
To call them IS Caliphate would be dead wrong.They are a bunch of criminals & thugs. They are western manufactured, for more war, profits and greed. Wall Street, Banksters, Neocons, dual citizens & the rest of carpetbaggers are just salivating and counting $$$. Israelies would love to bomb Syria another threat removed by others.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2014-09-11 09:30
Wall Street? Please explain.
 
 
+1 # ericlipps 2014-09-10 17:57
Quote:
If one goes by what thoe people now call themselves, it"s IS.
My choice was to go with ISIS mostly because I assume
it's the most recognizable, and also because it sounds better.

IS Caliphate would probably be the most accurate for the moment, but heads would need scratching.
You've certainly got me scratching mine. In this "Caliphate," who's the caliph?
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2014-09-11 10:03
In answer to ericlipps, as I understand it,
the self-anointed caliph, is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

Naming this multi-faceted entity is vexing, as khidr notes,
and they keep changing their name (just the way
Blackwater and others do), so that doesn't help matters.

"IS Caliphate" is something like what they currently
call themselves, and has the cognitive virtue of expressing
what their near term goal seems to be.

"Islamo Baghdadaists" might work, too. ;-)))
 
 
+1 # ritawalpoleague 2014-09-12 06:29
And, here's a reply to your #2 comment made, jsluka.....

ISIS is a CRISIS - MORE OH BOMB AH B.S.

The real 'crisis' would be if the 1% villainaire fossil 'foolers' might get bumped out of the 'still oiled up' ME, and not be able to rake in their trillions via grabbing and sale of oil, oil, oil (and keep the MIC TRICK in place).

Hells bells, wake up folks. What's all this 'we need endless drone strikes' and 'no boots on he ground', in order to keep us safe and "protect our interests"? Just more B.S. lead into more war, war, war for oil, oil, oil and keeping the MIC TRICK blooming.

ISIS IS A CRISIS? B.S., B.S., B.S.!!!
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2014-09-10 16:28
politicfix -- why do you care about the name? These names are invented by someone in the Pentagon or CIA. They are created for their effect on US TV news watchers. Probably they originally thought the ISIS goddess invocation was a good idea. Sounded exotic.
 
 
+43 # indian weaver 2014-09-10 11:50
I appreciate the erudite, "patriotic" comment by politicfix. But, the "clear and present danger" for 10s of millions of American lives is the government. Obama signed the NDAA (Fascism anyone), supports their newly installed Nazi regime in the Ukraine, and sold my country to BofA and JP Morgan. For me, the government is the root of all evil and destruction of my life and millions of the lives of We The People, not some fictional remote "terrorists". In fact, most of these so-called terrorists are the good guys we are wiping out, same as we did to innumerable Central Asian nations. The clear and present danger rots in Washington, DC, spreading their rot nationwide. The nation is in full collapse economically, still propped up with endless printing of dollars. The chickens will come home to roost, unless they are already roosting in Washington, which I suspect. The greatest threat to world peace is the FTRA, Ink. (Fascist Terrorist Regime of Amerika, Inkorporated). The FTRA is a fictional umbrella corporation owned by the banks, Wehrmacht and energy industry. We the People have NO relationship to this fascist regime anymore. They are not only useless, they are a clear and present danger to lives and liberty in my country and the entire planet.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-09-10 13:29
Please, please, please Indain weaver......... ENOUGH of the fascist rhetoric. If you only truly knew what it is like to live in a fascist state. Do you really think that you could get away with this post if you lived in good ol Russia. NO NO NO........
I'm sure you have some intelligent critisism to make but.......it gets soooooo lost in the fascist this, fascist that and America with a "k" rants that you are so fond of posting that you just come across as some neo-con puppet or an anti-American puppet.
Both useless and sad.
 
 
+51 # dickbd 2014-09-10 14:01
I'm in favor of avoiding hyperbole and name calling. But these are good points that were made. You should challenge Indianweaver on the issues, not the name calling.

We have had a very unfortunate history with Russia. Isaac Asimov mentioned that they did the bulk of the fighting and dying during World War II, while the allies kept delaying the western front that the USSR wanted so badly. Anyway, his comment was that someday we might get around to thanking them for that. We never have.

Gorbachev was betrayed when we promised not to expand NATO.

In any case, we have always been against Russia. First, it was because our plutocrats were scared to death that communism would sweep the world. Now, they are more capitalistic than we are, but we still make them an enemy. It is time for that to stop.
 
 
+18 # WBoardman 2014-09-10 14:41
And in 1918-1920, the U.S. invaded Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia
 
 
0 # arquebus 2014-09-10 16:05
Yeah....helluva invasion. We sent less than 8,000 troops who were tasked to primarily try to rescue American rolling stock supplied to the last government as well as try to help about 40,000 Czech soldiers get home. Considering there was no country there--torn up between Reds and Whites---not much to worry about.
 
 
+2 # dickbd 2014-09-11 14:05
That doesn't make it all right, though. And who do you think was supporting the white army?

Also, we did send a force in just to try to reinstall the Tsar. I'm not sure about the timing, but that might help putting the massacre of the Tsar and his family into some sort of perspective.
 
 
+2 # arquebus 2014-09-12 12:01
The White Army were anti-Bolsheviks and was a loose confederation of democrats, liberals, pro-monarchists ....all in all not a bad thing to be...opposed to Bolsheviks considering their blood thirstiness in the aftermath of 1918 revolution. Lenin and his cronies were not nice people.

And, we put in a force to reinstall the Tsar? Nonsense. First of all the Tsar and his families were prisoners of the Reds who ultimately slaughtered them like animals in a basement. Secondly.....we only had 8,000 men there...totally outnumbered by the Red Army...or the White for that matter.
 
 
0 # dickbd 2014-09-14 12:42
Ah, but did they slaughter the family because they knew the expeditionary force was coming? I'm not sure about the timing, but I do know that a force was sent in by the US just for that purpose.
 
 
0 # arquebus 2014-09-10 15:57
While true that the Allies may not have moved as quickly as the Russians wanted, it doesn't mean anyone was dragging their feet.

The US had to start nearly from scratch to build up its armies and navies and was fighting a two-front war. Even so, we took on the German army in Africa in early 1942...not long after Pearl Harbor and our entry into the war. Invasion of Italy in 1943 which tied down beaucoup German troops (what Russia wanted) followed by Normandy in mid-1944
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-09-11 08:30
Well, dickbd.......it doesn't help the Russian narrative that they supported Hitler and signed a Nonagression Pact with Germany. After all, they invaded Poland from the east while Hitler invaded from the west. Thanks to the Russians, my family ended up in Siberia. And let's not forget the Katyn Massacre, a mass execution of Polish military officers (over 5,000) by the Soviet Union during World War II.
So please excuse me for not shedding any tears for them.
 
 
+5 # dickbd 2014-09-11 14:02
I think your mistake here is in believing an entire people are responsible for atrocities. Look at everything that was done in our name--and still is!

But Stalin's pact is more understandable when you put it in context. He was getting no support from the allies, and the allies had blockaded the USSR after the revolution. And they sent an expeditionary force in to reinstall the Tsar. Our plutocrats were scared to death of communism.

Now, I'm not a communist or socialist, but I try to see things in context, and I try my best to be objective in any judgments I might make.
 
 
+30 # dbrize 2014-09-10 15:23
Quoting bmiluski:
Please, please, please Indain weaver.........ENOUGH of the fascist rhetoric. If you only truly knew what it is like to live in a fascist state. Do you really think that you could get away with this post if you lived in good ol Russia. NO NO NO........
I'm sure you have some intelligent critisism to make but.......it gets soooooo lost in the fascist this, fascist that and America with a "k" rants that you are so fond of posting that you just come across as some neo-con puppet or an anti-American puppet.
Both useless and sad.


Anyone who has read indian weaver and can describe him as "...some neo-con puppet..." should refrain from lecturing on the meaning of terms.

Fascism is a system characterized by a close, near symbiotic relationship between government and big corporations, especially military and banking interests. Control of major media outlets also figures in the mix.

Sounds familiar enough to allow as indian weaver has the drift. Call it "creeping fascism" if it makes you feel better.
 
 
+2 # shawnsargent2000 2014-09-12 10:26
No, that is the problem with the majority of the people today.
The people can't handle the truth, that our system perpetuates death and lose of freedom where ever we go to promote freedom and prosperity.
Our government in a lot of ways, is the wolf in sheep's clothing
Again look it up, Edward Snowden and the like have revealed the truth, We just need to act up the information that has been revealed to us.
 
 
+14 # Anonymot 2014-09-10 15:32
Well, Miluski, I have lived in fascist countries and know both the fascists and their victims. What you ignore is that fascism is not some monolith. It can have varying intensities and forms.

For the last few years I've been referring to what we have created and slipped on like an old coat: democratic fascism. It's no more the America we were told it is.

You are perfectly right that Indianweaver couldn't write as he does in a classic Russian, Zimbabwian, or Paraguyian dictatorship. But if you are truly interested in the subject I'd strongly suggest that you read a book that should be required reading for every high school grad in America: Defying Hitler by Sebastian Haffner. It's not only beautifully written, brilliant, and exciting, but it helps you understand how 60,000,000 people slip on the fascist yoke without realizing it until it's on. The other less intense but fascinating is, In The Garden Of The Beast by Eric Larson. But The Haffner is the compulsory one. I know of no book like it.

If you don't find a lot of contemporary America in it, you've not been listening.
 
 
+4 # Anarchist 23 2014-09-10 18:42
Read also the diary of Bella Frome, chief correspondent to the international diplomatic community in Germany for the Ullstein papers during the rise of Hitler. It was published as 'Blood and Banquets' and you will find it a fascinating account of how fascism and the Nazis took power in Germany
 
 
+13 # RMDC 2014-09-10 16:26
bmiluski -- Russia was never a fascist state and indian weaver know exactly what is like to live in a fascist state if he or she lives in the US. People do need to call things what they really are.
 
 
-5 # bmiluski 2014-09-11 13:34
RMDC...Since there has NEVER been a Communist state...anywher e... Russia became a facist state the minute it executed the Czar and his family.
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2014-09-11 18:46
Quoting bmiluski:
RMDC...Since there has NEVER been a Communist state...anywhere... Russia became a facist state the minute it executed the Czar and his family.


Right. And up is down, perpetual war will bring peace and if you don't know where you are going, any road can take you there.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-09-12 08:02
dbrize please......min us the condescending tone explain to me what exactly was wrong with my post.
 
 
0 # arquebus 2014-09-12 12:03
Do I understand that dbrize thinks there has been a communist state someplace in the world? Where?
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-09-12 12:15
Oh yeah arquebus, however, he/she has yet to tell us where it is. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.
There has NEVER been a communist state in the known world. If there was one in russia then please explain to me why the higher the party official the better their life. After all the cornerstone of communism is the equality of everyone and everything.
Anything else passing itself off as communism has ended up being facism all dressed up.
 
 
+1 # dbrize 2014-09-12 13:33
Quick now, name the corporations that existed in the USSR? Family farm owners? Name the labor unions? Who were the board of directors for Comintern?

If you said there has "NEVER" been a utopia you would at least be accurate.

Again you play Orwellian with words. The tipoff you don't know what you are talking about was when you called indian weaver a "neo-con" when everything you say about ISIL identifies you as the neocon fellow traveler.
 
 
-6 # Caliban 2014-09-11 09:42
Absolutely correct, bmiluski. If the US is a fascist state, why is indian weaver still allowed to publish his hyperbolic nonsense? Or allowed to live free, for that matter? Answer--the US is a more Conservative country than most of us would wish, but it is not fascist. Voting still works more often than not, and freedom of speech is still operative, as the publication of RSN and other politically aware and often critical periodicals amply demonstrates.
 
 
+7 # dbrize 2014-09-11 12:35
Quoting Caliban:
Absolutely correct, bmiluski. If the US is a fascist state, why is indian weaver still allowed to publish his hyperbolic nonsense? Or allowed to live free, for that matter? Answer--the US is a more Conservative country than most of us would wish, but it is not fascist. Voting still works more often than not, and freedom of speech is still operative, as the publication of RSN and other politically aware and often critical periodicals amply demonstrates.


As I said earlier, call it "creeping fascism". The similarities already exist.

The outline is in place: "crony capitalism" where large corporate enterprises collude with government to project and protect their interests, investment banks run amok with government support and protection, MIC/CIA shadow operators with limited if any, civilian control, whistle blowers subject to prosecution and career ruin, reporters that stray from the party line have sudden "accidents" ( Michael Hastings) or are hounded to suicide (Gary Webb), voting limited to two parties, frick or frack, by design of those two cousins.

What's "hyperbolic nonsense" is to accept the drivel that a couple thousand jihadists (ISIL) no one ever heard of a year ago could on their own, driving a bunch of pickup trucks, conquer 1/2 of Iraq in two weeks. When it took the mightiest military machine on earth 6 weeks to conquer all of Iraq.

It fails the smell test but there is nothing so easy as frightening those soccer Moms.
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2014-09-11 13:47
dbrize......do you want to tell the thousands that have been executed by these jihadists that it's just drivel? How about the families of the two American journalits? Also, they're not driving pick-up trucks. They are very well financed, armed and organized.
Do your research.
 
 
+3 # dbrize 2014-09-11 14:25
Quoting bmiluski:
dbrize......do you want to tell the thousands that have been executed by these jihadists that it's just drivel? How about the families of the two American journalits? Also, they're not driving pick-up trucks. They are very well financed, armed and organized.
Do your research.


From where did all this death and destruction in Iraq emanate? Want to stop jihadist executions? Stop creating the conditions that allow them to recruit. There are plenty of groups in the region that will take care of the jihadists if we get out of the way. Do you think those who lose loved ones from collateral damage by our bombing and droning are less worthy of our sorrow?

As for research, do some of your own. Who finances ISIS? Where do they get their arms? Who has organized them? Find the answers to these questions and the scales may fall from your eyes.
 
 
0 # bmiluski 2014-09-12 08:05
dbize, I find it interesting that once I called you out on your lack of credible data regarding the ISIL assholes, you went off on another of one of your anti-American rants.
 
 
+2 # dbrize 2014-09-12 13:04
Quoting bmiluski:
dbize, I find it interesting that once I called you out on your lack of credible data regarding the ISIL assholes, you went off on another of one of your anti-American rants.


And just what "credible data" have you presented concerning ISIL?

Our own agencies within the past few days have informed us that they are not a threat to the "homeland"? Do you not believe them?

As for "anti-American rants", you can stick that one where the sun doesn't shine.

It is only people like you that equate criticism of government policies with "anti-Americani sm".

Being a good American comports with loyalty to the constitutional principles upon which this nation was founded, not blind loyalty to any particular government leaders. It's not surprising that you don't understand this but a pity nonetheless.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-01-16 22:21
dbrize: According to government official David Cohen "ISIS...obtains the vast majority of its revenues from local criminal and terrorist activities.”[Ne wsweek, 11.6.14].
 
 
+5 # A_Har 2014-09-11 14:05
Quoting Caliban:
Absolutely correct, bmiluski. If the US is a fascist state, why is indian weaver still allowed to publish his hyperbolic nonsense? Or allowed to live free, for that matter? Answer--the US is a more Conservative country than most of us would wish, but it is not fascist. Voting still works more often than not, and freedom of speech is still operative, as the publication of RSN and other politically aware and often critical periodicals amply demonstrates.


We live under "soft fascism." The eroding of our constitutional rights is not happening all at once--it is a steady erosion:

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

And, *Obama has continued this process.* If you know about his signing the NDAA a few years ago where he can kill or indefinitely detain any American citizen without due process--there is an example, but there are so many more.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

It sounds like you think it can't happen here; it IS happening here, but you need to take the time to research it.
 
 
+3 # A P 2014-09-11 14:18
"None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrong looks like right in their eyes."
-Johann von Goethe
 
 
-2 # Caliban 2014-09-11 20:57
Nice quotation, A P. Let me modify it a bit to get closer to the truth about dbrize and his fellows: ""None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they (and everybody else) are enslaved".
 
 
-3 # bmiluski 2014-09-12 08:07
Caliban.......I don't often agree with you but......that was lovely.
 
 
+1 # dickbd 2014-09-12 13:46
Can we go to Cuba? Is mass opinion pretty much formed by media which are owned by corporations who have an agenda?

I think I'll go with A P's quote.
 
 
+1 # shawnsargent2000 2014-09-12 10:20
You are wrong, indian weaver is revealing the uncomfortable truth.
Look the information up on your own and you will see that we no longer live in a democracy.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2015-01-16 21:57
Thank you, bmiluski. Name calling displaces intelligent discussion while adding nothing of any value.
 
 
+20 # Rain17 2014-09-10 13:25
"Senator Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002, as did 22 other senators. "

Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002. He didn't win his seat until 2004.
 
 
+23 # WBoardman 2014-09-10 14:16
Rain17 is quite right about Obama winning his
US Senate seat in 2004, sworn in 2005.

My mistake, regretfully.

The substance remains solid:
on October 2, Illinois State Senator Obama went out of his way
to oppose the Iraq war in a clear, public voice.

This was 9 days before the US Senate voted.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

[I take some comfort in noting that in the link above,
NPR refers to "then-Sen. Barack Obama. I'm sure they'd
regret the error, too. ;–))) ]
 
 
+19 # tedrey 2014-09-10 13:51
When someone presents alternatives that are NOT stupid, as William Boardman does here, they are so unfamiliar that they seem impossible and uncomfortable, and we forget them as soon as possible.

Please don't. They are real smart.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2014-09-10 13:53
Why fellate the Saudis?

Wonder what would happen if FDR had given Japan a "pass" after Pearl Harbor?

Yet the American people accepted it in 2001!
 
 
+3 # curmudgeon 2014-09-10 15:35
The title reminds me of an old epithet a friend of my father's used many times....

"Do something...do it wrong"

I hope not
 
 
+12 # Anonymot 2014-09-10 15:52
Don't do stupid stuff is certainly not an organizing principle. It's what people who are stupid do. It's what people who are bright but out of their area of competence do. It's what the subject of the Peter Principle is. It's what Mrs. Clinton did for 4 years with her neocon friend Leon Panetta and her out-of-his-dept h boss and her closest friends like Rice and Powers and Huma. It is certainly what Cheney, one of the most powerfully bone-headed men in American political history helped create. What does it say about us that all of the aforenamed continue to run the country?

Everything didn't have to be decided in a few days once upon a time. There was room to slop around with decisions. One had a certain margin of allowable error. All that is gone. What has not kept up with the change is, 1. The quality of the people making the decisions, in fact that has severely slipped, and 2. The system in which decisions are made.

We're afloat in a sea of stupidity. The captains of the ship of state are monstrously incompetent, and the same old system of navigation can't find the compass. It will be an interesting ride. Learn to swim.
 
 
-14 # arquebus 2014-09-10 16:13
ISIS is dangerous to both Europe and North America. True there are only 10,000 fighters so far, but a few months ago there were far less. It is a growing entity.

I completely support targeting from the air ISIS artillery, armored vehicles, rolling stock of any kind, and--where found--troop formations.

But, if there is any ground fighting to take place, it should be by the people who live there and will directly suffer (and already are) under ISIS. At least for now.

As to doing stupid---hindsi ght is 20/20. I recall the beginning of the Iraq war. It is true there was some dissent, but if you have 100 experts telling you "pro" and 2 experts telling you "con", you are going to believe the former.
 
 
+17 # WBoardman 2014-09-10 17:05
arquebus buys into the threat inflation that ISIS has
inspired in some pretty mindless but high-ranking folks.

That threat inflation is part of what drives the present
lust to do something stupid.

Otherwise he(?) pretty well summarizes my argument,
except for the too slight hesitation in sending
American or any other non-local troops.
We know that's stupid because we've done it. Twice.

As for the lead-up to the Iraq war – what "experts"?
Cheney? Tenet? Curveball?

It was not hard to see – before the war started – that it was
unjustified and likely to be disastrous.
Like millions of other non-experts who saw that clearly,
I published that view in advance.

Would that I had been wrong.
 
 
-14 # arquebus 2014-09-10 21:35
Where did you get your crystal ball telling you the WMDs didn't exist? Even the head UN inspector couldn't say with authority on the eve of the war that the weapons didn't exist. As to who the "experts" were....most of the intelligence agencies for one thing...even the CIA director affirmed the weapons were there a couple of weeks before the war started. And, the Administration gave Saddam multiple chances to bail out and go retire in Switzerland which probably would have meant no war. Saddam refused. Bad choice on his part--he might still be alive.

Lots of information after the fact that going into Iraq was a mistake, but as Mr. Clinton said...a president has to listen to his intel people...he can't just go winging it on a gut feeling.
 
 
+11 # RMDC 2014-09-11 06:29
arquebus -- you are remembering the events of the run up to the invasion of Iraq wrongly. The weapons inspector's reports were conclusive in saying they had found and destroyed 97% of the prohibited weapons in Iraq. There was no rebuilt programs. And Saddam did turn over all records to the US in that famous handful of CD disks. The US ignored them.

Presidents don't "listen" to their intel people. They "tell" their intel people to fabricate intelligence to support the wishes of the war mongers. This is said clearly in the "Downing Street" memo. The report written by Joesph Wilson before the invasion proved that there was no uranium moving to Iraq.

All the proof needed to invalidate the claims of the Bush regime was present and easily obtainable if anyone were interested. Most were not interested. They jumped on the bandwagon for war.

Obama was, however, being groomed for the role of puppet in the Whore House. there was a substantial liberal movement growing around the anti-war and anti-Cheney momentum. Obama was being groomed by the CIA to capture the leadership of this movement, which he did in 2007-08 with his "hope and change" message. Most people thought "change" meant an end to the endleass wars. Instead, by "change" Obama meant a change of venues -- wars in places people had never heard of.

Obama is a CIA puppet just like Busy, Clinton, Reagan, Ford were. Only Daddy Bush was not a puppet and that is because he was the real thing -- a CIA man himself.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-01-16 22:43
Great ideas for a piece of dystopian fiction, RMDC, but for reality, I suspect we need look elsewhere.
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2014-09-11 10:22
arquebus asks: "Where did you get your crystal ball telling you the WMDs didn't exist?"

Wrong question. But it does express the Cheney view of
the need to act regardless of reality....

The right question was (and remains):
what is the evidence?

The evidence of WMDs and all that was unpersuasive
at best (Judith Miller and the NYTimes notwithstanding ).

Seems inherently a bad idea to go to war on a hunch,
an unsupported conviction, or (more likely) for reasons
having more to do with Bush family politics.

Seems any President's first obligation is to make the
effort to assure that the information he's given is correct,
or at least likely.

Bush-Cheney didn't care because they'd apparently
already decided they wanted the Iraq war
for their own reasons. And they got what they wanted.

And we got what they wanted, in part because too many
of us chose to believe their lies, or chose not to challenge
assertions for which there was little or no credible
evidence.

No crystal ball needed, just intellectual honesty.
 
 
+5 # bcwik 2014-09-11 11:54
It was painfully obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention at the time. The administration was blowing smoke and holding up mirrors in the run up to the Iraq war. I am just an average citizen, working in a foundry in Illinois at the time and I could see the fabrications and lies. They were making bald-faced assertions stated as fact with no evidence other than we should believe them just because they said so. There was no doubt whatsoever that we were being led around by fear and misdirection. That is one reason I cannot forgive Hillary, or Joe Biden and the rest of the spineless pack that went along with it. If I could figure it out, why couldn’t they?
 
 
+1 # geraldom 2014-09-14 11:25
Even Former General Colin Powell, once he was no longer Secretary of State under G.W. Bush, actually admitted that his statements to the U.N. were false and misleading and that it was one of the most shameful moments in his life, that is was a blot on his record. I refer you to the following URL:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
 
 
-12 # arquebus 2014-09-10 21:35
Where did you get your crystal ball telling you the WMDs didn't exist? Even the head UN inspector couldn't say with authority on the eve of the war that the weapons didn't exist. As to who the "experts" were....most of the intelligence agencies for one thing...even the CIA director affirmed the weapons were there a couple of weeks before the war started. And, the Administration gave Saddam multiple chances to bail out and go retire in Switzerland which probably would have meant no war. Saddam refused. Bad choice on his part--he might still be alive.

Lots of information after the fact that going into Iraq was a mistake, but as Mr. Clinton said...a president has to listen to his intel people...he can't just go winging it on a gut feeling.
 
 
+10 # medusa 2014-09-10 22:10
There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It is apparently too hard to believe that George W Bush was the tool that he was. What was in his body or mind that he sat in a schoolroom like an F student for--how many minutes?--after being told "our country is under attack"? The UN search guys visited sites every day in Iraq--sites of their choice, and unanounced--and found nothing.
 
 
+3 # dickbd 2014-09-12 14:04
Ralph McGahee in his book DEADLY DECEITS told how the CIA was simply another tool for the president. Of course, they get out of control once in a while because they have an unlimited, undefined budget, but the president wanted evidence of WMDs, and he got it.

Before he went into the CIA, McGahee was an All American football players and a Rhodes Scholar. His work in the CIA had him so dismayed that he was on the verge of suicide, but he wanted to live to expose that vile organization.
 
 
+5 # karenvista 2014-09-11 21:05
Obviously there were millions of people who could see that the rush to war in Iraq was not based on fact. That's why millions of us who were clairvoyant protested worldwide.

The evidence was all there if you looked at it.
 
 
-2 # Khidr 2014-09-10 17:13
How can western manufactured ISIS be dangerous to Europe & North America? Think 9/11 and Building no. 3 coming down by itself free falling like WTC towers.
 
 
+6 # Anarchist 23 2014-09-10 18:46
Quoting Khidr:
How can western manufactured ISIS be dangerous to Europe & North America? Think 9/11 and Building no. 3 coming down by itself free falling like WTC towers.

It was building WTC7 but in all essentials you are correct.
 
 
+2 # Khidr 2014-09-11 12:39
My mistake. WTC No.7.
Today is the 13 anniversary of 9/11.and no investigation of how building WTC 7 came down. The 3000 innocent victims, their families and all the 99% tax paying American citizens, innocent dead, maimed Afganis, Iraqis, American soldiers and the world needs an explanation.
 
 
0 # futhark 2015-01-27 11:10
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did, in fact "investigate" the collapse of WTC 7. Here are some links:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Given that video of the sudden and symmetrical collapse of this building is widely available online, one really doesn't have to have an advanced degree in architectural engineering to perceive that NIST's explanation that the collapse was caused by "numerous small fires" is entirely specious.
 
 
+3 # futhark 2014-09-10 16:26
Fact Check:
"Senator Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002, as did 22 other senators."

From Wikipedia:
"Obama was sworn in as a senator on January 3, 2005."

If Barack Obama voted against the Iraq war in 2002, it wasn't in the United States Senate. From 1997 to 2004 Mr. Obama was an Illinois State Senator. Does anyone have a record of whether or not the Illinois State Senate voted on the issue of the Iraq war in 2002?
 
 
+7 # futhark 2014-09-10 16:29
Sorry, I should have read Rain17's and WBoardman's posting above first.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2014-09-10 20:29
Quoting futhark:
Sorry, I should have read Rain17's and WBoardman's posting above first.


Not to worry. It happens to most of us from time to time.
 
 
+5 # geraldom 2014-09-10 20:47
Yesterday, the following article came out:

https://movies.yahoo.com/news/michael-moore-slams-obama-history-only-remember-were-211803862.html

It's entitled "Michael Moore Slams Obama - History Will Only Remember You Were a Black President"

Before reading the article, I thought that Michael Moore was condemning Obama for what he has done recently, what happened in Ukraine and what his plans are for ISIS, starting another war in Iraq and now a new war in Syria, basically the continuation of Bush's foreign war policy, but none of that was even mentioned in the article.

The article basically condemned Obama for all the things that he didn't do, things that could've improved the life of the average American citizen in the U.S in the almost 6 years he has been president.

What Michael Moore didn't include in the article is the fact that Obama not only has continued Bush's policy of U.S. world hegemony, but that he has put it on steroids. Obama has illegally overthrown two democratically- elected governments in his tenure as president, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras and had him replaced with a hard-core U.S. puppet dictatorship, and President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine and replaced him with two puppet dictators, President Petro Poroshenko and PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and his bound and determined to overthrow the govt of another sovereign nation, Syria.

And the list can go on and on and on. I would need a hell of a lot more space to list all of my disappointments .
 
 
-7 # arquebus 2014-09-10 21:25
I wonder.....woul d geraldom prefer some other country be the world's hegemon? I do wonder because if not the US some other country will be the hegemon. You can count on that.
 
 
+4 # A_Har 2014-09-11 12:54
Quoting arquebus:
I wonder.....would geraldom prefer some other country be the world's hegemon? I do wonder because if not the US some other country will be the hegemon. You can count on that.


Actually, many countries are chafing under the *unipolar status* of the USA which seems to be dedicated to preserving its position as the world's one and only superpower. Others like Russia and China wish to live in a multipolar world, but the Kstreet neocons are dead set against that. This is a big source of the meddling in other countries along with efforts to ringfence Russia with NATO bases.
http://mainetalk.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/image004.jpeg

And with regards to *stupid stuff*......"Su fficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishab le from malice."
 
 
-2 # arquebus 2014-09-11 18:48
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Russia and China want to live in a multipolar world. That's really funny. Each of them wants to be the hegemon. And, of course, the US is looking to preserve its position....tha t's what hegemons do. The Brits did it for a hundred years after Trafalgar and Waterloo. Rome did it. Ancient Greece did it as did the Persians. Let's not forgot one of the earliest hegemons....Egy pt. Until bumping into the West, China was the hegemon in East Asia for centuries.

The reality is there is going to be a hegemon for the foreseeable future. Which one do you want to be the top dog...the US or Russia or China.
 
 
+6 # RMDC 2014-09-11 06:45
geraldom is right about Obama. More and more I'm convinced that the stories about Obama being recruited in college by the CIA are true. The year he spent right after college working for the CIA front company, Business Consultant's International, was probably not an innocent internship. He was a recruit in training.

His mother certainly was CIA and his father came to the US to study on a program of the CIA to bring talented Kenyan students to the US to train them and indoctrinate them. Obama's mother worked for the Ford foundation in Indonesia in the years after the CIA coup installed the military dictator Suharto.

The CIA has controlled the presidency ever since JFK got his head blown off in Dallas Texas for wimping out on the Bay of Pigs invasion. Obama is just the most recent in that line. The next president will be another CIA puppet.

The policies of world-wide war and domination that Obama follows have not changed at all since the 1948 and the founding of the CIA. Obama would be quite at home taking orders from the Dulles brothers.
 
 
-5 # bmiluski 2014-09-11 13:54
RMDC.......wher e do you people get this stuff?????????? You're as bad as the "birthers".
 
 
+4 # RMDC 2014-09-11 06:56
I don't think Obama will be remembered for being the first black president. After all, he is half white and that is the part of him that shows the most. He really has not made any effort to support the really serious obstacles African Americans face in the US. He has not tried to be a role model. He has acted totally white and he has surrounded himself with racists.

Obama will be remembered as GW Bush's follower. He is a TV front man just like GW Bush. He is poorly informed on all issues just like GW Bush. He reads speeches written for him by the same people who wrote GW Bush's speeches. He hams it up in front of TV cameras just like GW Bush. He likes to be seen eating just like GW Bush. He might as well be GW Bush's little brother.

It is time to stop referring only to the African side of Obama. He's half white and that is his dominant side.

He's just another failed white president. Failed of course in his responsibility to people. Fabulously successful in his work for the military-indust rial-banking complex and the AAIE.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-01-16 23:22
RMDC has this part right about Obama: "Fabulously successful in his work for the military-indust rial-banking complex and the AAIE".

Indeed, since 2008, the country has developed a much strong financial standing than before. Our industrial base has grown, meaning more jobs and lower unemployment for the working class. Our military's ground presence in the Middle East has been greatly reduced, and apparently one or more of the country's many "AAIE"s are doing well also.

This sounds like a lot of Americans doing better under this fine President's leadership than was the case before.
 
 
+1 # Khidr 2014-09-11 12:49
to continue Geraldom's Obama's policy on steriods, killing of Kaddafi & destabilzing Libya, continuing destablizing Syria, overthrow of Egypt's democratically elected government...In dia has been warned if you don't leave BRIC, al qaeda is coming there to destablize you (Ayman Zawhari's article in a recent Christian Science Monitor article.
 
 
+6 # karenvista 2014-09-11 21:17
Don't forget how well Libya has been doing since we "led from behind" in the overthrow of that government.
 
 
+6 # tclose 2014-09-11 09:35
I'd like to commend Mr. Boardman for his insightful assessment of "not doing stupid stuff" in his article. I usually do not agree with his recent articles, especially with respect to Ukraine, but here his country-by-coun try romp is deliciously on target. Thanks, William.
 
 
-1 # arquebus 2014-09-11 23:21
Is ISIS dangerous to the US? On an existential level...not at all. But, they are growing, are well-financed from bank robberies and selling oil. And, their leadership has made is a part of their public agenda to stage attacks against western Europe and the US.

Could they destroy this country...of course not, but they could kill a lot of people when they get around to it if someone doesn't break them up. I really don't want to see another 3,000 dead in our streets as a result of a terrorist attack.
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2014-09-12 10:06
arquebus poses a false choice:
kill ISIS or get dead Americans.

A more realistic choice confronts Syria/Iraq and
their neighbors, who are first on the list to be
incorporated into the IS caliphate.

Doing stupid stuff is often rooted in the America-centric
worldview which, by definition distorts reality
without being apart from it.

At the moment, the U.S. is embarked on another round
of really stupid stuff, of which one of the prompt
consequences will likely be increased ISIS recruitment –
because, for some strange reason, "these people"
seem to resent being saved by bombs and missiles.

What's even more dangerous than the course we're on
is that the loudest voices are not opposed, but
rather calling for much greater carnage than
the President has endorsed.

What we're embarked on now has a good prospect
of turning arquebus' false choice into
a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good job!
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-09-14 00:57
Mr. Boardman, 9/11 was a false-flag event signed off by G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In other words, we weren't attacked by Islamic terrorists that fateful day, but if Obama attempts to bomb ISIS (as that famous saying goes) into the stone age, I can assure you that ISIS will attempt to sneak into the U.S. and there will be real terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens inside United States proper.

If Obama really doesn't want the deaths of large numbers of U.S. citizens here in the United States and elsewhere in the world, he best leave them alone, but we all know that he won't.

But, I also have to ask myself if Obama really wants to destroy ISIS in Syria. ISIS seems to have made agreements with other Islamic rebel groups in Syria to work together against the Assad regime. Reference the following URL:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Something smells to high heaven here with this situation. I have the strangest feeling that at the top of Obama's to-do list is to first overthrow the Assad regime, and then worry about what to do about ISIS.
 
 
0 # geraldom 2014-09-14 10:47
In answer to my own curiosity as to why ISIS has agreed to work together with other Islamic rebel groups in Syria, the following article came out this morning that has answered that question. Reference the following URL:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-assad-shooting-american-planes-141200579.html

This is what I dislike so intensely about the United Nations. What Obama is professing here is at the very top of the list of violations of international law, the most heinous of them all, the toppling by sheer force of a sovereign and independent nation simply because the United States does not like it. This is not a legal justification for overthrowing a legal government of an independent nation, and yet I do not hear a peep coming out of the United Nations condemning this threat by the United States, not one!

What was the whole point of Bashar Assad completely disarming himself of his most potent defense weapons, his chemical weapons, in order to placate the very nation (and its puppet proxy military arm in Europe, NATO) that is once again threatening his very existence as leader of Syria, the United States?

I just hope Putin does a whole lot more than backup one of the very few allies Russia has left in the Middle East with just words. He has to literally place the Russian military between the U.S./NATO and Bashar Assad of Syria and to seriously defend Syria against any military attack by the U.S. and NATO.
 
 
0 # Khidr 2014-09-16 14:52
Remember Saddam got rid of his WMD and for his good work the West rewarded him with destruction of Iraq and few million Iraqis got killed. Methinks Assad is making the same blunder. Israel & World Bank loose another enemy...what a deal. Let others do our dirty work.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2015-01-16 23:32
geraldom--if you are right about 9/11, shouldn't we really be more worried about Bush and Cheney than ISIS?
 
 
-5 # arquebus 2014-09-12 12:09
Well, gee.....if someone says they are gonna kill me and has the means and motivation, I think I would take that threat seriously.

Apparently, Mr. Boardman thinks ISIS, which has the means, motivation and has publicly stated they intend to attack Europe and the US, should not be taken seriously...the y are really all just fuzzy bunnies that don't mean the big bad wolf US any harm.
 
 
+3 # bcwik 2014-09-12 17:01
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in such constant fear of the big bad wolf.
 
 
+3 # Jingze 2014-09-13 12:03
Oh, yes, let's dump more money and arms on people who will pass it on to ISIS so it can slaughter a few more Americans on TV. The media would love it, and it would do much to boost the economy. War is wealth. Hooray!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN