Spinsah
TRIBE Member
Thank you.
-
Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!
US to attack Syria in "unbelievably small, limited strike" if they don't give up chemical weapons
- Thread starter alexd
- Start date
The Watcher
TRIBE Member
Enjoy!
praktik
TRIBE Member
WestsideWax
TRIBE Promoter
In the immortal words of Andrew Clark, "Answer the question, Claire."
Rather than dropping more videos, particularly one interviewing some random who claims to have it all figured out, where even the comments are opining that she seems to have a couple of screws loose.
pretty much the manifesto of PNAC.
Although, they don't have the direct hand in the current administration , many argue that their influence remains.
here's a letter they wrote to Obama in 2011
praktik
TRIBE Member
Yep but PNAC are still just one facet of a trend in the conservative political culture - the neocon trend, and I think its clear that much of the Republican party and Blue Dog type Dems are still beholden to this neo-Wilsonian ideological bent...
...Add to these a set of earnest liberals motivated more by the "do gooder" than by the "action jackson" type shit and you get a pretty strong consensus for war.
PNAC is definitely important to know and understand but must be situated in this wider movement - some tracts tend to focus inordinately on PNAC and miss the nexus of other interests that share the same drive and the political roots of it that have been burdgeoning for some decades on the right...
...Add to these a set of earnest liberals motivated more by the "do gooder" than by the "action jackson" type shit and you get a pretty strong consensus for war.
PNAC is definitely important to know and understand but must be situated in this wider movement - some tracts tend to focus inordinately on PNAC and miss the nexus of other interests that share the same drive and the political roots of it that have been burdgeoning for some decades on the right...
The Watcher
TRIBE Member
The Watcher
TRIBE Member
praktik
TRIBE Member
Do Military Interventions Reduce Killings of Civilians in Civil Wars?
As a conflict actor weakens relative to its adversary, it employs increasingly violent tactics toward the civilian population as a means of reshaping the strategic landscape to its benefit. The reason for this is twofold. First, declining capabilities increase resource needs at the moment that extractive capacity is in decline. Second, declining capabilities inhibit control and policing, making less violent means of defection deterrence more difficult. As both resource extraction difficulties and internal threats increase, actors’ incentives for violence against the population increase. To the extent that biased military interventions shift the balance of power between conflict actors, we argue that they alter actor incentives to victimize civilians. Specifically, intervention should reduce the level of violence employed by the supported faction and increase the level employed by the opposed faction. We test these arguments using data on civilian casualties and armed intervention in intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2005. Our results support our expectations, suggesting that interventions shift the power balance and affect the levels of violence employed by combatants.
praktik
TRIBE Member
^^ this is what happened in Yugoslavia - in all the back-patting in the west we don't ever call ourselves to account for the fact that our Coward's Way (air strikes w/ no boots on the ground) meant protections for civilians were removed (they had to leave when the bombs started) at the same time as the dynamics listed above came to act on the players in the game: the result were spikes of civilian casualties coming as a direct result of our bombing.
The Brave Way would have been to actually insert western soldiers in between the warring sides, but that would mean actually living up to our language of Western nobility and civilization, and its just better for everyone if we can brand ourselves as brave without having to actually you know, BE brave...
The Brave Way would have been to actually insert western soldiers in between the warring sides, but that would mean actually living up to our language of Western nobility and civilization, and its just better for everyone if we can brand ourselves as brave without having to actually you know, BE brave...
Persephone
TRIBE Member
It works in both directions no? Surely you don't believe that only American media is suffering from excessive corporate influence.
How do you judge the quality of information? What makes one source more credible than another? What constitutes good evidence vs. corrupt/bad evidence, for you?
I'm not being facetious here.
What do you think are the motivations behind your alternative news sources? Where do they get their funding?
WestsideWax
TRIBE Promoter
Here, let me answer all of that for you on the Watcher's behalf:
[YOUTUBE]om_RfWmxLx8[/YOUTUBE]
Persephone
TRIBE Member
Thanks, but I'd rather hear from the messenger himself.
The Watcher
TRIBE Member
I get the news from everywhere, msm, alternative, blog,youtube,conspiracy sites,research.
You have to use a healthy dose of skepticism with everything you see or hear, after a while you see the narratives and see the bigger picture.
So in case you didn't read it the first time, I'm of the opinion that US has gone rogue, and this needs to be stopped. Just about everything out of the white house and msm is propaganda just like Libya was. The whole thing is a setup false flag. This is a proxy war against Russia and China, and there's no way to win without humanity losing.
You have to use a healthy dose of skepticism with everything you see or hear, after a while you see the narratives and see the bigger picture.
So in case you didn't read it the first time, I'm of the opinion that US has gone rogue, and this needs to be stopped. Just about everything out of the white house and msm is propaganda just like Libya was. The whole thing is a setup false flag. This is a proxy war against Russia and China, and there's no way to win without humanity losing.
videotronic
TRIBE Member
surely a guy staring intently into his macbook webcam on infowars would be well informed, no?
praktik
TRIBE Member
Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?
Robert Fisk drops his knowledge on the Syria scene...
Robert Fisk drops his knowledge on the Syria scene...
Lojack
TRIBE Member
^ Seriously, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It would be easy to call Obama a liar, based on what he campaigned on.
Anyway, back to the chant:
R2P R2P R2P R2P R2P R2P! (Democrat)
USA USA USA USA USA USA! (Republican)
"Umm, no" (Rand Paul)
ETA: Good article. Spot on conclusion.
-- L
It would be easy to call Obama a liar, based on what he campaigned on.
Anyway, back to the chant:
R2P R2P R2P R2P R2P R2P! (Democrat)
USA USA USA USA USA USA! (Republican)
"Umm, no" (Rand Paul)
ETA: Good article. Spot on conclusion.
-- L
praktik
TRIBE Member
GG was on that just today:
In 2008, President Obama, when he was a candidate for President, had this question-and-answer exchange with the Boston Globe:
Good book was The Confidence Men - I think maybe everyone knows there's a bit of a wink and a nod going on almost all the time in politics, but I'm not sure I'm ready to allege conscious mendacity or ill will."Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
"OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
Given that not even the most ardent interventionists for Syria contend that the bombing is necessary for US national security, how can a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval possibly be reconciled with that position? When the same issue arose with Obama's war in Libya in the absence of Congressional approval (indeed, after Congress expressly rejected its authorization), State Department adviser Harold Koh was forced to repudiate Obama's own words and say he was wrong back then. Who will play that role this time? As is so often the case, there is a much starker debate between candidate Obama and President Obama than there is between the leadership of both political parties in Washington:"OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
I think rather more we saw someone absorbed by the Beltway Bubble - the team he put around him pretty much guaranteed that would be the way he'd go and no apple carts would be upset. The Confidence Men is a good detailing of all those dudes - especially Larry Summers.
That said, his foreign policy rhetoric on Iraq was refreshing but he had to toe the line on the American exceptionalism thing - we weren't talking about an isolationist here or a real representation of the anti-imperialist left - but someone who felt injured by the way Bush went around exercising American power.. He was just gonna do it "better" - maybe pull back a bit, but I think even the Obama of our dreams of yesteryear would be in a very similar position to the one he's in right now - tempted to go and fight monsters in the traditional mold of the Western civilizing mission, the one we are all familiar with here in Canada with our own bit of national pride resting on the "nation of peacekeepers" rhetoric. The American liberal foreign policy wet dream isn't that much different.
He had Libya under his belt and they all found ways to rationalize that one as a success - I don't think there's really any politician in the mix that wouldn't be tempted to push the button. Certainly any sitting president would have a significant number of voices asking him to do it and telling him why he should. It hits all the right notes and even though the American polling is down on this I have no reason to doubt it rising as soon as the missiles start flying.
Last edited:
Regardless of all the political rhetoric and hypocracy coming out of the US administration's mouth, I see a bombing of Syria as not being enough to satisfy Western interests and I anticipate a full blown invasion within the year.
The point that the bombings will support the rebels, including Al Qaeda fighters, is an important one. If the West wants to maintain some degree of influence in the region they ought to act decisively and fully.
As we saw in Libya, Egypt, and even Algeria, the toppling of a dictator creates one hell of a political power vaccuum and renders the future satisfaction of Western interests victim to chance. We have learned that democracy in this region is difficult to establish, let alone maintain. Islamist politics will vie for a chance to gain power as we've seen in other Arab Spring nations.
Worst case scenario for the West would be the establishment of multiple Islamist regimes. I'm pretty sure the whole region has been fraught with in-fighting since Treaty of [Versailles?] and this has kept them from globally challenging Western power.
The point that the bombings will support the rebels, including Al Qaeda fighters, is an important one. If the West wants to maintain some degree of influence in the region they ought to act decisively and fully.
As we saw in Libya, Egypt, and even Algeria, the toppling of a dictator creates one hell of a political power vaccuum and renders the future satisfaction of Western interests victim to chance. We have learned that democracy in this region is difficult to establish, let alone maintain. Islamist politics will vie for a chance to gain power as we've seen in other Arab Spring nations.
Worst case scenario for the West would be the establishment of multiple Islamist regimes. I'm pretty sure the whole region has been fraught with in-fighting since Treaty of [Versailles?] and this has kept them from globally challenging Western power.
Lojack
TRIBE Member
One of the things Snowden referred to (IIRC) is that politicians can be blackmailed based on past information gathered. So that may not be a surprise to anyone who has studied that topic, but Snowden's comments really reminded me to ask "why?" again, particularly about that. What changes? Skip the eyes only shit for a minute, what has changed between someone vying for political power and then getting it? Fear? Fear of losing it? Second term Presidents shouldn't be concerned about that.. what else?
The Watcher
TRIBE Member
Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria | EUTimes ? Iranian.com
So, if the US attacks Syria, Syria and Iran attack Israel and Russia attacks Saudi Arabia... who does China attack?
So, if the US attacks Syria, Syria and Iran attack Israel and Russia attacks Saudi Arabia... who does China attack?