The American war machine: within and without, for and against

..moved

And Justin Trudeau does whatever he can to be a good neighbour to the US!

The US can beat the Taliban easily but it would contravine the Laws of Armed Conflict and a number of the Geneva conventions.

Part of the US problem is defining, or lack there of, what defines victory.

Ken Burch wrote:

Noops wrote:

NDPP wrote:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/03/comm-j03.html

"... The implication of the tweet is that the US military is not only quite ready to kill people with a nuclear weapon for a third time but quite eager."

Third time? Someone's mathematically challenged.  :(

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first two times...the next would be the third.  Nobody's mathematically challenged on this but YOU, Noops

Could Noops be referencing the atmospheric tests that apparently caused cancer? I am not sure but perhaps some clarification can come on this?

"5,000 Troops To Colombia" To Quell Venezuela Crisis? John Bolton Flashes Notepad Contents At Briefing

During a Monday White House press briefing national security adviser John Bolton was photographed carrying a notepad — presumably as he was fresh out of a national security meeting — and one of the things which appears to be handwritten on the pad is "5,000 troops to Colombia".

The contents of the notepad were spotted almost immediately by multiple journalists online after an NBC news release featuring the AP photo was published. More precisely the full contents appear to read:

"Afghanistan -> Welcome the Talks. 5,000 troops to Colombia."

...can´t remember where I first read and posted the plan of the US war machine to pull its troops from the Middle East, in preparation for its wars in latin America...this is confirmation!
Latin America? What about Canada? As things turn sour, and movements spread?

A treaty protects the world from nuclear attack the same way a restraining order protects someone. 

NDPP wrote:

As Russiagate Fades, War Hawks Unsatisfied

https://www.rt.com/shows/news-with-rick-sanchez/451328-news-with-rick-sa...

"Former naval intelligence officer John Jordan joins Rick Sanchez to discuss [UK Defense Secretary] Williamson's comments as well as remarks made by Admiral John Michael Richardson, commander of the US Navy that the US may need to 'push first' against Russia and China..." @11:00

Of course this is Trumpist messaging.

Trump likes to proclaim that there was no collusion found implying that the thing has concluded and nothing was found -- constantly. It is more shocking that anyone is falling for this.

You don't have to believe that there is anything there to see how ridiculous it is to keep running with this "no collusion was found" with respect to an investigation that is not complete and the main facts and conclusions are not public.

There is not any conclusion about what has been found that does not have the qualification -- "that is public - so far." It is an ongoing investigation. The investigators are not going to release conclusions as a result of a question. The answer to the question is there proof of conclusion will always be "no" until the investigator chooses to annouce something (if something is ever found).

The real bottom line that nobody wants to face is that there is still nothing public either way -- and that this is normal for an investigation that is ongoing. Those who say that collusion with the President has been proven are not telling the truth any more than those who say it has not. There is a lot of smoke since conspiracy allegations exist, but the conspirators are as yet unknown to the public, even if known to Mueller.

The real trouble here is that people on all sides including here, are announcing speculation about a secret investigation as if they actually know something.

Those making declarations of "no collusion" keep playing fast and loose with the facts as they try to extend the "no-collusion found"  statement which is true with respect to a particular part or release of information to the entire investigation as if that is a conclusion. It is getting tiresome.

Speculate away -- it is fair to speculate on both sides as neither has actually been ruled out despite massive volumes of propaganda.

Mobo2000 wrote:

Sean, when you say "of course this is Trumpist messaging", do you mean by that it shouldn't be posted on Babble?   Or just that babblers should disregard it because it's similar/the same as things Trump says?

Regarding "no collusion", the part I keep getting stuck on reading these threads here is what exactly is the sort of collusion that could be found that would, for you or other babblers hoping for impeachment: 

a.   be a valid reason to remove trump from office/imprison him legally and in keeping with American legal norms and customs regarding presidential priviledges and powers, and

b.  be acceptable to enough Americans to have it actually come to pass

I don't see real estate deals or hush money to porn stars as being in line with either of the above criteria.   

And the central assumed theme of the investigation, collusion with a foreign power to influence the American election, is hopelessly vague.   Where does collusion begin?   How is it defined?  Is it spending 2 million on facebook ads, or $20?   I can't see what could possibly be found that would both result in Trump impeachment and a postive, progressive precedent for future investigations of future presidents.   I don't know what you are hoping Mueller finds.  

A response to something is not a call that it be censored. It is to provide context -- just like every other responding post.

This also has nothing to do with any prefered outcome.

It is a statement that those saying nothing was found or that soemthign was found are speaking conclusively about something that is not public and that is not finished.

Warsaw Conference’s War with Iran Agenda, Met with Low Level Delegations from European Allies

quote:

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Vijay, it’s a serious conference with foreign ministers at the table, and they’re openly talking about a war with Iran. How real is this possibility?

VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, let’s look at who came to the conference I think this is important. You know, the United States sent the top level people, Mike Pence, the vice president; Pompeo came, the secretary of state. He even brought Rudy Giuliani to speak outside the conference, essentially to an Iranian terrorist group, where he, much more than people inside the conference, declared war against Iran.

But meanwhile, the Germans didn’t send any high level people. The French didn’t send high level people. And the European Union didn’t send any high level people. This is very important, Sharmini, because these are the signatories to the Iran nuclear deal. In other words, they knew that after the United States had walked away from the Iran nuclear deal, they knew that this year’s conference in Warsaw was going to be comical, was going to be filled with threats of war; essentially the opposite of diplomacy, which is why these countries stayed away.

And I think the United States should see this as a great embarrassment, that its vice president, its secretary of state, went to a conference where the counterparts to then–in other words, heads of governments, of France, Germany, of the European Union; foreign ministers, Federica Mogherini, really, people like that essentially snubbed them, and left the United States with its Gulf Arab friends, with the Israelis, to talk in the kind of cesspool way about war. You know, they don’t have any alliances which are willing to give them a fig leaf in Iran. The Europeans are not going to kind of come in and make adult the war against Iran. They are very opposed to it. The Europeans, in terms of Iran, will do everything to prevent conflict.

Of course, the situation is different, Sharmini, vis a vis Venezuela, where the Europeans seem as eager the United States, or perhaps lackadaisically as eager as the United States, to have some sort of military confrontation in Venezuela. Certainly with Iran they know that they are absolutely reliant on oil sales. They don’t want a war. It was clear in Warsaw that the real–a party that was, in a sense, humiliated was not Iran, but it was the United States government led by Donald Trump.

quote:

SPEAKER: President Trump has said he’s open to meeting one day with your president, the Iranian president, potentially to renegotiate the Iran deal.

MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF: Why should we negotiate a deal which we spent not just a couple of hours meeting, but 13 years to negotiate? And we negotiated with the United States? Why should we trust President Trump, that he would abide by his own signature? We’re talking about a country that has withdrawn from every known treaty, from INF, from UNESCO, from Council on Human Rights, from NAFTA. From whatever, you name it, they’ve withdrawn from it.

quote:

VIJAY PRASHAD: I think it’s important for Americans and others to know that Mr. Zarif, the foreign minister, is an extraordinarily smart man. He did a Ph.D. at the University of Denver on self defense in international law and diplomacy. This is a man who knows what he’s doing. So when he makes that kind of statement, he’s essentially saying to the Europeans that look, you and us–that is, the Europeans and the Iranians, and the United Nations are quite happy with this deal, which was ratified by the United Nations. We want to hold by it. You want to hold by it–that is, the Europeans. You don’t want to break this deal. This is something that the United States is doing by itself as a party to the deal. It has walked away. I think this is a very clever strategy because he knows that the Europeans and the United States are divided. And he’s going to essentially sit on this divide, and he’s not try to bring them together in any way; he’s not trying to ruffle any feathers. You know, it’s important for people to know that it was Mr. Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States, who went to the Warsaw conference and attacked the Europeans. You know, he essentially accused them of letting the United States down.

This is, of course, one way to make allies and friends of the Europeans on this issue. So Zarif is playing a very key role here in making sure the Europeans know that he’s going to abide by international law. And I really think that on this issue for the United States, for the Gulf Arabs, and for Israel, it’s going to be very difficult to move towards a situation of war. Zarif also said in that interview that a war would be suicide. And again, Sharmini, the parallel with Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela is quite interesting, because Maduro last week said that the war against Venezuela would be a replay of the U.S. war on Vietnam, another suicidal war. I think that these people are quite aware that there’s going to be a lot of threats thrown around. There would be a lot of psychological warfare happening. Economic warfare. But I think they know that the United States might have the capacity to do one or two aerial bombing runs against Iran or Caracas, but they know that the United States doesn’t have the appetite to be in the middle of four or five theatres at the same time, still embroiled in Afghanistan, caught up in the Sahel region of Africa, still not fully pulled out of Iraq. And I think the appetite for a war in Iran and in Venezuela is very low.

Noops wrote:

NDPP wrote:

(1) Hiroshima, (2)Nagasaki and (3)...?

New York city, Sep. 11, 2001 for starters.

 

Please share the drugs you are on.

Ya that is scary shit NDPP. I’ve heard of these type of small nukes being used against groups of naval vessels groups of tanks and other military hardware grouped together. 

They are tactical weapons as opposed to being used to say just a city, a civilian target like Hiroshima. 

New US military budget coming up shortly, both parties seem to agree:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-defense-budget...

"Last week, reports emerged that Trump, while touting overall spending cuts “higher than any administration in history,” was planning to ask for a $750 billion defense budget — a $34 billion increase over last year’s request. This will put an end to years of what’s known as budget “parity,” or the idea that defense and non-defense funding should rise and fall together.

Last year, the Department of Defense failed to pass its first-ever audit. For this and other reasons, one would think that this would be a good time for Democrats to band together and prevent a raise in military spending, or even fight for cuts until the Pentagon can get its books in order.

That doesn’t seem to be in the works.

According to a Hill source, the Democrats are targeting a counter-offer above the $716 billion budget Trump asked for in 2018. In other words, the Democrats want to lower Trump’s number, but still give the Pentagon a raise.

“Even the opening number is going to be really high,” says the source.

Trump’s budget request represents a 5-percent increase overall. Budget analysts have said they expect the final number to be between last year’s $716 billion figure and $733 billion, the likely final number also quoted to Rolling Stone. A $733 billion defense budget number would represent a 2.4-percent increase, or about half of what Trump wants.

Should the Democrats approve a $733 billion budget — remember, Trump’s $716 billion budget passed 85-10 in the Senate last year — it would break a record for the second consecutive year."

Is there a war on terror thread? I think we need one. I am hesitant to start one because I am terrible at finding existing threads, even my own.