Or "The US media is as liberal as the large corporations that own them."
Part of propaganda is to stir up the emotions.
And no country does it better than the good old USA!
Unfortunately, my reaction when I saw all the gushing on about the Kurds was to think: "When the fuck has the US ever really cared about the Kurds?"
That wasn't the response that the US Media was hoping to elicit from me. I was supposed to be upset about what was going on in Syria.
Well, in another way than it is a mistake that has come back to bite the US in the ass.
Trump talks about fake news, which the US Main Stream Media likes to pretend it isn't. But there is a definite bias there.
FAIR.org has a fantastic piece on how most of the reporting on the situation in Syria misrepresents the facts.
You might want to compare NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's comments to Erdogan to Trump's letter.
Not sure what to say about Trump's handling of the situation, but I will say he is the perfect distraction for what is really going on right now. It's really easy to blame Trump for a situation which should never been allowed to have happen.
Showing posts with label Treaason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Treaason. Show all posts
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Friday, October 18, 2019
What's the alternative?
I hear a lot of people criticising Trump for the Syria thing, but I don't see any alternative solutions being offered. The problem is that this was a time bomb where the US was acting with NATO ally Turkey in Syria.
The Kurds were good for being proxy troops for the US, but they were a problematic ally. First off, the Turks (and US) lists them as being terrorists. Secondly, the Kurds' loyalty was to themselves and their goal of a nation. That was a goal that the US could never honestly promise. And while the Kurds will happily fight anyone: they won't do it for someone else unless the someone else is going to protect them.
That leads to problem one: the Kurds will shift loyalties to who ever will protect them. They were fighting with Assad early in the conflict. The US lured them away, but the Kurds made it clear that they would switch back to Assad if the US stopped protecting them. The problem is that the military isn't the body that makes the decision: the politicians are. The military isn't supposed to question: it's supposed to obey.
And the military can't make too many friends in a place where there are rapidly changing allegiances such as the Syrian Civil War. Learn a lesson from the Kurds, your loyalty is to yourself first.
The Kurds were an American ally against ISIS, not Turkey. The United States made no commitment to protect the Kurds against the Turkish army, much less assist them in maintaining a degree of independence in northern Syria that I know about. The United States was entitled to pursue its own interests in the region without some form of formal agreement. Neither Trump nor Obama defined those interests in a way that would justify a deepening military engagement in Syria.
Leaving the few soldiers in the Kurdish zone endangers American lives. The Generals who felt strongly could have disobeyed orders if they felt such a strong tie to the Kurds, but then the blame would fall on them for endangering their troops in a Turkish invasion.
Next problem: the NATO Treaty. The Treaty is a formal agreement, unlike whatever was between the US and Kurds. The existence of a Treaty ruled out a military response of any sort. A no-fly zone would be a no-no. Nothing says betrayal like shooting down an Ally's airplane.
On the other hand, Congress could declare war on Turkey if they feel as strongly as they purport to, but they won't.
The only real options are economic or diplomatic. The only real difference between what I would have done and what Trump did would have been to get international action to prevent the Turkish invasion. I also would have begun working on an exit strategy earlier. The Turkish invasion of Syria was not something which was in any way a surprise, yet no one did anything to prevent the problem.
The big problem is that there is a lot of bluster here. Congress is blustering. The Generals are blustering. The Turks are blustering. Trump is Blustering.
It's easy to play the blame game, but this was a disaster waiting to happen. Too many people failed to act to prevent the problem.
At this point, the US should take a deep breath and look at how it got into yet another mess.
See also:
The Kurds were good for being proxy troops for the US, but they were a problematic ally. First off, the Turks (and US) lists them as being terrorists. Secondly, the Kurds' loyalty was to themselves and their goal of a nation. That was a goal that the US could never honestly promise. And while the Kurds will happily fight anyone: they won't do it for someone else unless the someone else is going to protect them.
That leads to problem one: the Kurds will shift loyalties to who ever will protect them. They were fighting with Assad early in the conflict. The US lured them away, but the Kurds made it clear that they would switch back to Assad if the US stopped protecting them. The problem is that the military isn't the body that makes the decision: the politicians are. The military isn't supposed to question: it's supposed to obey.
And the military can't make too many friends in a place where there are rapidly changing allegiances such as the Syrian Civil War. Learn a lesson from the Kurds, your loyalty is to yourself first.
The Kurds were an American ally against ISIS, not Turkey. The United States made no commitment to protect the Kurds against the Turkish army, much less assist them in maintaining a degree of independence in northern Syria that I know about. The United States was entitled to pursue its own interests in the region without some form of formal agreement. Neither Trump nor Obama defined those interests in a way that would justify a deepening military engagement in Syria.
Leaving the few soldiers in the Kurdish zone endangers American lives. The Generals who felt strongly could have disobeyed orders if they felt such a strong tie to the Kurds, but then the blame would fall on them for endangering their troops in a Turkish invasion.
Next problem: the NATO Treaty. The Treaty is a formal agreement, unlike whatever was between the US and Kurds. The existence of a Treaty ruled out a military response of any sort. A no-fly zone would be a no-no. Nothing says betrayal like shooting down an Ally's airplane.
On the other hand, Congress could declare war on Turkey if they feel as strongly as they purport to, but they won't.
The only real options are economic or diplomatic. The only real difference between what I would have done and what Trump did would have been to get international action to prevent the Turkish invasion. I also would have begun working on an exit strategy earlier. The Turkish invasion of Syria was not something which was in any way a surprise, yet no one did anything to prevent the problem.
The big problem is that there is a lot of bluster here. Congress is blustering. The Generals are blustering. The Turks are blustering. Trump is Blustering.
It's easy to play the blame game, but this was a disaster waiting to happen. Too many people failed to act to prevent the problem.
At this point, the US should take a deep breath and look at how it got into yet another mess.
See also:
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
If Barack Obama made a really stupid decision about US troop deployment: wouldn't we hear about it?
Something that Senator Lindsay Graham would describe as “the dumbest idea in the world.”
What I am describing is something that would put the US into conflict with a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member.
Something which should have had congressional approval before being implemented. Something along the lines of funding an organisation which the US State Department lists as being a terrorist organisation.
Yet, that is exactly the situation that happened in Syria. After all the person who was president when the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was Barack Obama.
There are a lot of things which stink to me about the US coverage of this event. The main one is the sudden sympathy for the Kurds.
But even more bothering is that Donald Trump is being blamed for something which sits squarely on Barack Obama's shoulders.
Yet even people who would have attacked Barack Obama are criticising Trump for this situation.
What I am describing is something that would put the US into conflict with a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member.
Something which should have had congressional approval before being implemented. Something along the lines of funding an organisation which the US State Department lists as being a terrorist organisation.
Yet, that is exactly the situation that happened in Syria. After all the person who was president when the American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War was Barack Obama.
There are a lot of things which stink to me about the US coverage of this event. The main one is the sudden sympathy for the Kurds.
But even more bothering is that Donald Trump is being blamed for something which sits squarely on Barack Obama's shoulders.
Yet even people who would have attacked Barack Obama are criticising Trump for this situation.
Trump was right? or who really committed treason?
Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution (Article III, Section iii):
I'm no fan of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, whose administration decided to arm a group on the US State Department's list of Terrorist organisations. An action that would eventually lead to conflict with a NATO treaty ally?
Of course, you can't just blame Obama since congress knew, but did nothing about it. In a previously posted video, Lindsay Graham asks about the Kurds being listed as terrorists. Sen. Graham was among the harshest critics of Trump’s decision this week. Graham was once sympathetic to Turkish concerns and called the partnership with the Syrian Kurds “the dumbest idea in the world” in an April 2016 Senate hearing, given the PKK connection (clip mentioned above).
The question is who in the US was in charge on September 22, 2014 when the US began its involvement in Syria!
See also:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.Prosecutions under this section are rare since it requires the act to take place during war time.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, whose administration decided to arm a group on the US State Department's list of Terrorist organisations. An action that would eventually lead to conflict with a NATO treaty ally?
Of course, you can't just blame Obama since congress knew, but did nothing about it. In a previously posted video, Lindsay Graham asks about the Kurds being listed as terrorists. Sen. Graham was among the harshest critics of Trump’s decision this week. Graham was once sympathetic to Turkish concerns and called the partnership with the Syrian Kurds “the dumbest idea in the world” in an April 2016 Senate hearing, given the PKK connection (clip mentioned above).
The question is who in the US was in charge on September 22, 2014 when the US began its involvement in Syria!
See also:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)