Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Of course, like the corresponding rejection of communism. Which is, for some reason, much less emotional.

You betray once again your ignorance of American politics and society - it's the other way around, here.

Whatever, this makes the use of the label "fascism" to anybody who does not openly accept it himself suspect.

Since you got the emotions wrong, your implication is even sillier - but it is silly to begin with. The label goes on the ideology and the political movement - emotions don't change that.

My personal aversion depends on how much the government restricts my personal freedom in questions which are important for myself.

No, it doesn't. It's the other way around - your perception of restrictions etc depends on your aversion. Like this:

And once (as far as) there is more support for the unipolar world on the left side, I tend to support the right side.

The US hegemony - your primary "unipolar" excuse - gets its support from the Right, everywhere. So you need another explanation for your support.

everybody who names some of the left a fascist receives bad words from you, without details of what he made wrong. All this quite typical of propaganda words.

Silly again. What you "made wrong" is reposting Orwellian Newspeak you got from American wingnut propaganda - leftwing fascism, like circular triangles, is a contradiction in terms. Accepting circular triangles as a category would cripple one's ability to do geometry, right? That's the position you have put yourself in.

But this content is not that much about the word "fascism", but about the content

There is no other content. The book is a work of propaganda, and its content is its effort to spike intellectual criticism of the Republican (fascist) Party by poisoning the well of reason and analysis from which it draws. Destruction of the word "fascism" is a significant advance in that effort.

Again, I do not care much about the use of the word "fascism". Fascism, as you use it, is nothing but a nice left-wing propaganda tool.

Nonsense. Fascism really exists, as a political ideology and mode of governance, no matter how I or anyone uses the word. The thing doesn't go away because you get rid of the name - only the ability to talk about it is damaged. And the only objection you have ever had to my use of the term has been my use of it in talking about Trump - and/or Putin.

. Given this background, one does not wonder why you refuse to give a definition of fascism - you know that it could be easily used to show that Obama and Clinton are fascists, or, otherwise, it would be useless to prove Trump and Putin are fascists

That illustrates the crippling effects of sophisticated American rightwing propaganda on a vulnerable mind, and the gains it achieves thereby - you can't identify fascism at all any more, and that prevents you from distinguishing Obama's ideology from Trump's in any important way. Now you are groomed for "bothsides" schticks.

This same thing happens to Americans who are uninformed, and fall prey to the rightwing authoritarian agitprop. That's a political gain - a very large one - in the US, and that's the point. Your foreign mind is just collateral damage.

And Goldberg has, of course, some points.

No, he really doesn't. Even his facts are in the service of bullshit. And you are completely vulnerable.

You still haven't acknowledged the role of the pipelines etc in Putin's involvement in this war. Why not?

 

[Schmelzer]

I will not argue with somebody who cries all the time about me being stupid about the relative strength of emotions against communism and fascism.

The label goes on the ideology and the political movement - emotions don't change that.

But for whatever reasons you refuse to give a definition of fascism, which would allow us to evaluate the issue rationally, without emotions. Instead, you insist on using it. Why? Without the strong emotions behind it, the word "fascism" is nothing but an f-word. Name them gremlins, as if it would matter how one names them - what matters (for scientists) is that we agree about the meaning so that we can use the word in communications. As we actually cannot, given that you refuse to define the f-word.

The US hegemony - your primary "unipolar" excuse - gets its support from the Right, everywhere. So you need another explanation for your support.

No. You forget about another, much simpler possibility: That I reject your opinion as complete bs.

Accepting circular triangles as a category would cripple one's ability to do geometry, right?

Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle And, of course, it leads to contradictions only because the basic notions are precisely defined things. Moreover, as explained several times, we have here a clear case of intentional use of an oxymoron, and by arguing that an oxymoron is self-contradictory you only disqualify yourself.

Fascism really exists, as a political ideology and mode of governance, no matter how I or anyone uses the word.

YMMD. What I name fascism exists, in the Ukraine. What you name fascism exists in the US and Russia. So, we are talking about different things if we say "fascism". My notion of fascism is at least well-defined, your definition is hidden. So, I can talk only about fascism as I have defined it. This would be no problem, if you would not insist that other people accept your notion of fascism. Which is revealed to them only in form of an unquestionable Oracle by High Priest Iceaura, secret knowledge not accessible to pure sheeple.

The thing doesn't go away because you get rid of the name - only the ability to talk about it is damaged. And the only objection you have ever had to my use of the term has been my use of it in talking about Trump - and/or Putin.

This was not the point - I have even offered to you to change my own definition of fascism so that as Trump as Putin would fit into it. But this was unacceptable to you, because Obama and Clinton would, then, be fascists too. I insist here on using precise definitions, and I give them. You refuse to give them.

you can't identify fascism at all any more, and that prevents you from distinguishing Obama's ideology from Trump's in any important way.

LOL. Offer your definition of fascism, so that we can check if the ideologies of Obama, of Putin, or of Trump (if there is such an animal) fit into it.

Here is, btw, how a globalist from FP sees the difference:

global stability depends on the United States holding onto its moralism
... isn’t “taking advantage” of other nations’ citizens on behalf of your own the whole point of being a great power?
It is. But for that very reason, the United States, with its missionary sense of its global role, has tried to reinvent the concept ever since reaching great-power status.

So, roughly, Obama's rule is based on moralism, Trump simply on power game in the own interest. The sort of moralism is specified too:

One way of understanding Obama’s foreign policy is that he sought to offer a model of post-hegemonic great-power status. The United States would listen rather than hector; convene others, rather inform them after the fact; carefully calibrate the costs of action; and even, at times, “lead from behind.”
...But the United States under Donald Trump no longer cares to provide the model for great-power comportment.
Trump has not simply surrendered the American model of great-power behavior; he has actively encouraged and enabled the archaic model. The Obama administration chastised China for defying international law in the South China Sea; Trump has given China a pass on the subject, as he has given human rights offenders everywhere a pass.

Compartment, and support of international law instead of pure egoistic interest.

Trump’s gross cynicism may have reminded even some realists of the merits of a values-based foreign policy; Walt has recently written that the belief that the United Stands for something “other than naked self-interest” has served it well in the past. It would, in fact, be a grave mistake for Washington to forsake its status, however hypocritical, as the role model for aspiring liberal great powers. While the United States can hardly decide who does and does not qualify for great-power status, it should have something to say about how such powers should act toward each other and lesser states.

So, one can find and argue about differences between Obama and Trump without using the f-word.

Of course, I disagree with this. The main point of disagreement is not that a volitional compartment of a great power would not be useful, not only for the world but also for the great power itself. And it is not that there is no such difference - with Obama following, in comparison with Trump, a more "moral" policy. And certainly not that this type of self-compartment played an important positive role for the US itself becoming the unipolar leader.

The main point of disagreement is that the self-compartment of the US was given up much earlier - namely after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And giving up this self-compartment was what destroyed the unipolar world. Blaming others for violating international law - ok, this was something Obama has done. But the self-compartment would be something completely different, namely not violating international law yourself. The hypocrisy is acknowledged even in the article itself:

Yet American moralism, and even American hypocrisy, have served a profound purpose, providing a deeply appealing alternative model of what it means to be a great power. That is, after all, the meaning of “soft power.”
...
It would, in fact, be a grave mistake for Washington to forsake its status, however hypocritical, as the role model for aspiring liberal great powers.

So, what would be the ways out of Obama's hypocrisy - America is doing what it likes, without caring about any international law, but pretending to care by accusing others to violate it? There are the following alternatives: 1.) No longer violating international law yourself, 2.) Give up hypocritical pretenses against others for doing what one is doing oneself too. Trump has chosen the second way.

You still haven't acknowledged the role of the pipelines etc in Putin's involvement in this war. Why not?

Because I don't see it. Tell me about the details of this big role, in particular, which pipelines Putin tries to build, or to occupy, destroy or prevent, and how supporting the legal Syrian government gives an advantage in doing this.

 

[iceaura]

I will not argue with somebody who cries all the time about me being stupid about the relative strength of emotions against communism and fascism.

What do such responses hope to accomplish - am I going to believe them, about my own posting, which is right there to review? I can tell you how they read: you defending your ignorance at all costs, because you have become aware that your entire worldview depends on not knowing certain things.

What I name fascism exists, in the Ukraine. What you name fascism exists in the US and Russia. So, we are talking about different things if we say "fascism". My notion of fascism is at least well-defined, your definition is hidden. So, I can talk only about fascism as I have defined it.

You haven't defined it. The only thing you've even mentioned is your labeling criteria, which
1) are very silly in this context (this is you being stupid, not just ignorant) and
2) you seem to think change the reality in front of you. As if fascism goes away when you refuse to name it.
3) To remind you: in line with your identification criteria, you have denied the existence of fascism in the US. Specifically, you claimed that the Republican Party and Trump were not fascist because they do not call themselves fascist. That was your posted reason for claiming they were not fascist.

Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle

Yes, really:

Because all its diameters are the same, the Reuleaux triangle is one answer to the question "Other than a circle, - - -

Note the importance of "other than a circle". It's not a circle, see. It's not a kind of a circle. If you need something to be circular, and it's that instead, it won't work. Got it? This is important to you. Leftwing and rightwing totalitarian ideologies are different, they seize and hold power in different ways. If you only see one of them coming, and support the other against it, you are supporting a totalitarian ideology.

So, one can find and argue about differences between Obama and Trump without using the f-word.

But you will miss key aspects, and in particular the threat posed by the Republican Party and Trump's ascendency. You may even suffer from the delusion that Trump's weakening of the US reduces the threat of war to you, because you miss the nature of the weakening.

This was not the point - I have even offered to you to change my own definition of fascism so that as Trump as Putin would fit into it. But this was unacceptable to you, because Obama and Clinton would, then, be fascists too.

Your "offer" was to claim I was forced to accept fascism as any political system with a "corporatist" economy, in order to include Trump and Putin. It illustrated the problem with you and definitions - the propaganda-addled cannot reason, or employ their damaged vocabulary for analysis (that's why the pros set out to damage it, after all - so people like you would be unable to make sense. Orwell warned you.).
So we will focus, here, on identification criteria - yours are obviously stupid, but they do harm, and I think by repetitive attrition against physical reality they can be rendered less harmful (either they go, or your credibility goes - either way the rest of us are better off).

The main point of disagreement is that the self-compartment of the US was given up much earlier - namely after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And giving up this self-compartment was what destroyed the unipolar world.

And here becomes visible the tragedy of propaganda's influence.

Yes. Your insight there is very important, and the people like me in the US have been battling to establish it in US politics. And this propaganda schtick you have suckered for is a major obstacle. You have thrown away allies, and given your support to what you claim to despise, under the influence of bad people with bad agendas.

Because what in the US became Republican Party stuff, the Reagan Era, has been a disaster in all respects - morally, ethically, economically, socially, politically - in all of American life. And Trump is an expansion, a further encroachment, a yet greater establishment, of that disaster. Observe (for example) his relationship with international law, treaties, diplomacy in general, his entire life. Observe his relationship with "comportment".

So that in Syria even to consider international law seriously, in reference to anything Trump will do, is to appear naive, foolishly idealistic. He will do what he wants to, curbed only by considerations of what he can get away with or is being bribed/blackmailed into doing. He will not, as Obama did, curb US forces in consideration of what is better ethically or legally or in view of moral authority and long term decency in life. Far from establishing curbs of his own, he has even revoked Obama's curbs.

And so the future, seen developing on the maps:

 

[Schmelzer]

So, now for the second time, the news about the Albu Kamal being controlled by the Syrian army.

Other maps show some counterattacks, and the bridge yet under Daesh control:

I was already close to write a simple EOD, but unexpectedly at the end there appeared something worth to respond:

Your insight there is very important, and the people like me in the US have been battling to establish it in US politics. And this propaganda schtick you have suckered for is a major obstacle. You have thrown away allies, and given your support to what you claim to despise, under the influence of bad people with bad agendas.
Because what in the US became Republican Party stuff, the Reagan Era, has been a disaster in all respects - morally, ethically, economically, socially, politically - in all of American life.

Sorry, but I see no allies inside the US, except for a politically irrelevant libertarian minority. For me, the key event what turned me against the US (as well as against the German Green movement which was fully supporting it), was the bombing of Belgrad. And you know who has done this. Not that this was the first thing which made me anti-American, but it was the final point of transformation from a mainly pro-Western anticommunist, who liked 1989 the Western freedom of press very much, into a fighter against the West, in particular the Western media.

And Trump is an expansion, a further encroachment, a yet greater establishment, of that disaster. Observe (for example) his relationship with international law, treaties, diplomacy in general, his entire life. Observe his relationship with "comportment".

I see this. And I'm quite happy with this - because it destroys US soft power. And this is the main power the US needs for the unipolar world. Almost half of the worlds military budget is, of course, also important, but without the soft power, it is not sufficient to rule the world. I can only hope that this lasts eight years because this would make sure that this soft power is lost in an unrecoverable way. I would wish you every type of success recovering self-restraint of US foreign policy after this. But, sorry, only if it is too late to revive with such methods the former strength of the US soft power.

How much Trump time is necessary for this is difficult to expect. In the optimistic scenario, this point may have been reached already - simply because after Trump nobody will be certain again that the next time another Trump will win the elections. And without this certainty about the predictability and permanence of US foreign politics -- which was up to now guaranteed by the deep state rule -- the main part of US soft power may be already lost. The split of the deep state, which made Trump possible, is weakening the US soft power much more than Trump himself. Trump would be simply a visible effect of this split.

So that in Syria even to consider international law seriously, in reference to anything Trump will do, is to appear naive, foolishly idealistic. He will do what he wants to, curbed only by considerations of what he can get away with or is being bribed/blackmailed into doing. He will not, as Obama did, curb US forces in consideration of what is better ethically or legally or in view of moral authority and long term decency in life. Far from establishing curbs of his own, he has even revoked Obama's curbs.

Nobody thinks that Trump cares about the international law. But, to quote Trump at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum: "We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore. I am always going to put America first, the same way I expect all of you in this room to put your countries first.” In other words, he does not care about many questions Obama cared about, questions caring about them is an intrusion into internal affairs of other states. This gives other states back some part of their sovereignty, not intentionally, but simply by not caring about them.

Some things Trump does not care about are those things which are the key to organizing color revolutions and other regime change operations - namely, US control of the mass media everywhere. He does not object at all if local rulers kick out US-controlled "liberal" mass media. Similarly, he does not care about the fate of US puppets being the "opposition parties" (really moderate or "moderate") or Soros-paid "NGO"s (Northamerican Government Organizations).

So, Trump time is also time for governments everywhere to prepare their countries against the danger of US-supported regime change. Which is something which makes the world, as a whole, more stable, even after Trump's time.

It will also be a bad time for "democracy" as well as "free press" worldwide. You will probably whine a lot about this. I will whine much less. Because in the actual world, "democracy" and "free press" was not really about rule by the people and freedom of press, but about the right of the US to buy the leading media, and to install, then, their own puppets via "democratic" elections simply with sufficient mass media support. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that there will be also cases where such operations against US-controlled media or NGO are really harmful, with bad consequences, in particular, less freedom, for the people in that country. But I have no doubt that the percentage of them, in comparison with the Western media whining about this, will be low.

Whatever, this will be something happening quite independent of what Trump is really doing - all what is necessary is that he does not care about this, and this is sufficiently predictable. And if the local US influence agents loose power locally, this is nothing which can be easily reverted after Trump.

 

[iceaura]

But, to quote Trump at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum: "We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore. I am always going to put America first, the same way I expect all of you in this room to put your countries first.” In other words, he does not care about many questions Obama cared about, questions caring about them is an intrusion into internal affairs of other states. This gives other states back some part of their sovereignty, not intentionally, but simply by not caring about them.

You have been warned, repeatedly, about basing your ideas of what Trump will do on what he says. You have claimed, repeatedly, to not do that. But you keep doing it, because you don't know any better.

Almost half of the worlds military budget is, of course, also important, but without the soft power, it is not sufficient to rule the world.

You cannot see corporate power, because if you could you would have to see fascism.
It's not "the US" that was ever going to rule the world as a unified power, after all - the US is just a country.

The split of the deep state, which made Trump possible, is weakening the US soft power much more than Trump himself. Trump would be simply a visible effect of this split.

There was no such split.

Some things Trump does not care about are those things which are the key to organizing color revolutions and other regime change operations - namely, US control of the mass media everywhere. He does not object at all if local rulers kick out US-controlled "liberal" mass media.

You have no idea what Trump "cares about", any more than you have of "US control of mass media". You speculate in ignorance - correct by chance only.

Sorry, but I see no allies inside the US, except for a politically irrelevant libertarian minority.

Exactly. You don't see.

but it was the final point of transformation from a mainly pro-Western anticommunist, who liked 1989 the Western freedom of press very much, into a fighter against the West, in particular the Western media.

You are a promulgator of the worst of the Western media, a source of its propaganda memes, a co-opted victim of the American rightwing propaganda operations. Right now, you are their ally.

And if the local US influence agents loose power locally, this is nothing which can be easily reverted after Trump.

So he will be forced to try other means, in areas of interest to guys like Tillerson and Republican Party backers generally.

 

[Schmelzer]

In Harasta (East Ghouta) everything goes as usual - a big attack by joepistole's friends, with some initial success, then the Syrian army is reinforced, and taking back what has been lost. The actual map is:

which is essentially the initial situation. In Western Damascus, near the Golan Heights, some mountains have been taken. During the last week, there has been a peace agreement with two or three villages, with the more radical of joepistole's friends retracting to Beit Jin. So, this enclave is slowly reducing too:

North of Albukamal the Syrian army is advancing from North as well as from South to establish a connection along the Euphrat.

In Northern Hama, Daesh is advancing against Hatesh:

This Daesh enclave started with a breakthrough of the Syrian lines of the remains of the Western Daesh (ISIS) pocket. After reaching the Idlib enclave controlled essentially by Hatesh (Al Qaeda), they started to fight each other. Which is, of course, nice, and in such a situation it makes sense to support the weaker part. So, after Hatesh seemed to win, the Syrian Army started from several fronts attacks against Hatesh, taking a lot of villages by the way, not only but mainly from Hatesh. So, Hatesh had to take away forces from the front against Daesh. Now, Daesh has been able to recover and is taking villages from Hatesh again.

You have been warned, repeatedly, about basing your ideas of what Trump will do on what he says. You have claimed, repeatedly, to not do that. But you keep doing it, because you don't know any better.

Learn to read. Here is, again, what I extracted from this quote: "In other words, he does not care about many questions Obama cared about, questions caring about them is an intrusion into internal affairs of other states." I have not made any suggestion about what he will do. Only about what he will not do.

So he will be forced to try other means, in areas of interest to guys like Tillerson and Republican Party backers generally.

And another learn to read. What you have quoted was not about what Trump can do, but about what can be reverted after Trump, by the Clintonoids or whatever who take power after him, and may hope to recover all what has been lost.

What remains are boring repetitions answered 100 or so times, as usual with no information content.

 

[iceaura]

Learn to read. Here is, again, what I extracted from this quote: "In other words, he does not care about many questions Obama cared about, questions caring about them is an intrusion into internal affairs of other states." I have not made any suggestion about what he will do. Only about what he will not do.

You are "extracting" things from what Trump says, and basing your predictions of how Trump and the US administration will behave (even telling us what Trump "cares about") on what Trump says.

You have been advised to quit doing that, and you have repeatedly claimed not to do that. And yet there you are, doing that.

The apparent cause of you getting suckered so often is your refusal to recognize Trump's (and the US Republican Party's) fascism, so that the relationship between what Trump says and what he does is invisible to you.

What you have quoted was not about what Trump can do, but about what can be reverted after Trump, by the Clintonoids or whatever who take power after him, and may hope to recover all what has been lost.

The word "Clintonoid" seems to be a hypnotic trigger for you - tracing its inculcation would be interesting (far more interesting than anything you type after typing that word). It doesn't appear to be the bogey of cognitive dissonance that "deep state" has become - it has a more specific function in screening Trump from your sight, and its exact function would be revelatory.

Meanwhile, my comment was directly an d clearly about what Trump can do and is setting up to do, while in office, given the "loss" you described as taking place while he is in power.

Trump is cutting the State Department, for example, while boosting the CIA and black ops military operations you claimed to dislike (at one time you were posting as if you thought Clinton were running the CIA from the State Department, or even from retirement, but I assume you know better than that by now). As advised so often before, you would probably benefit by paying more attention to those actions, and less (or no) attention to his speeches, but it's your choice:

Your number one worry was war and tyranny and US-allied world oppression, not Putin's welfare and success, remember? Even in Syria, that was your ostensible point of view.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army (Tiger forces) have now also started to clear the remaining villages on the Western side of the Euphrat. The advance follows the same scheme as before - first of all, take control of some stripe of the desert West of the river valley, because it gives fire control. Only later the villages in the valley will be cleared.

But at that place, this technique has led them anyway to the river itself, so that at this place there was nothing more to clear. Once such a place has been reached, it makes sense to clear the encircled pocket which remains North of that place.

You are "extracting" things from what Trump says, and basing your predictions of how Trump and the US administration will behave (even telling us what Trump "cares about") on what Trump says. You have been advised to ... And yet there you are, doing that.

Stop speculations about what I use as the base. I use as well information I have read about what a lot of other people think about Trump. And his actions or non-actions. Look, for example, what is happening in Cambodia:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Cambodia ordered the dissolution of the country’s main opposition party. ... The decision, which will see the CNRP stripped of its parliamentary seats, is the culmination of a crackdown that intensified dramatically in September with the midnight arrest of the CNRP’s leader, Kem Sokha. The 64-year-old has since been accused of plotting with the U.S. government to overthrow Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), which has ruled Cambodia since 1979. ... Since Kem Sokha’s arrest, the authorities have ramped up a propaganda campaign asserting that the CNRP lies at the center of an elaborate anti-government conspiracy. This allegedly includes civil society and union leaders, American democracy-promotion groups, U.S.-funded broadcasters, and various American Embassy officials.

So, Hun Sen targets, as explained, all those US influence agents which could support a color revolution. And what was Trump doing to stop this? Does not look like he has done much, given that he is yet a great man to Hun Sen:

... Hun Sen has reasserted Cambodian sovereignty and pushed back strongly against Western criticism. In recent months, he unleashed a series of blistering attacks against the U.S. government, focusing on the American carpet-bombing of Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s, and its alleged support for Hun Sen’s opponents since 1991. The one apparent exception to Hun Sen’s anti-American turn, however, seems to be none other than President Donald Trump. “You are a great man to me,” Hun Sen told Trump in a speech at an Asian summit in Manila last week, before calling on him to “remind” local embassy staff not to “interfere” in Cambodia’s affairs.

You think it matters if Trump really follows this call and reminds the local embassy staff not to interfere? I think it is enough if he is doing simply nothing. For Hun Sen, this will not be a problem.

Another example where Trump doing nothing is nice for the world? No problem. Erdogan demonstratively imprisons some German NGO guy during a visit of some happening of that NGO. Merkel cries but is ignored. Trump does nothing. Putin comes and exchanges that guy against some Crimean Tatars imprisoned for terrorism on Crimea. All sides are satisfied. Merkel gets this guy back and has one problem less. Putin has improved his relations as with Turkey, as with Germany, and can no longer be attacked in the Western media for imprisoning these poor Ukrainian freedom fighters. And Erdogan can also present himself as a winner. Again, all one needs from Trump is doing nothing. The world quickly learns how to dispense the indispensable nation.

Note also that I have not asked you for advice. Stop behaving like a teacher. You are nothing but a propagandist of your Party line, not an advisor. And given that your "advice" is based on your guesses about what I do and think, which are always completely off, your "advice" can only by a rare accident contain something useful, thus, will be ignored.

 

[iceaura]

Stop speculations about what I use as the base.

You post it, I quote it. Where's the speculation?

So, Hun Sen targets, as explained, all those US influence agents which could support a color revolution. And what was Trump doing to stop this? Does not look like he has done much, given that he is yet a great man to Hun Sen:

Hun Sen looks like a clever man heading off trouble - what Trump will do differently in Cambodia than past Republican Presidents after being flattered by yet another despot, or differently than (say) Obama's doing of nothing much while China expanded its interests there, is currently unknown. Note that Hun Sen has run the place through several US Presidencies while consolidating power - the apparent end of prospects for democratic government in Cambodia is a culmination of decades, in which Reagan, Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama, did as much apparent "nothing" as Trump.

So, Hun Sen targets, as explained, all those US influence agents which could support a color revolution

Not all of them.
He targets only his political opposition, including by prison and physical abuse - not the foreign corporate influence agents who would back a change of regime if he opposed them. Those, he leases 45% of Cambodia's land to, on favorable terms (for them, and him).

The only obvious lesson there is that you favor corporate-friendly strongman tyranny and despotism in Cambodia, as you favor it in Syria and Russia and everywhere - it's part of your "libertarian" worldview (https://en.portal.santandertrade.com/establish-overseas/cambodia/investing-3). That and you believe the State-dominated media of Cambodia about their "targeting". Believing State-dominated media in preference to others is also part of your libertarian worldview.

And that all of your claimed opposition to "corporatism" is bullshit. But we knew that already.

You think it matters if Trump really follows this call and reminds the local embassy staff not to interfere? I think it is enough if he is doing simply nothing.

You take the silliest media things seriously.
The way you know that he is "doing nothing" and will do "nothing" (where Obama was doing what?), is the same way you know everything else about US politics - by your "good methods" for "extracting" from your favorite propaganda.

So: what does the propaganda extraction say about pipelines in Syria, after the latest advances, now that Putin seems to be making good progress toward establishing a client State there?

 

[Schmelzer]

The only obvious lesson there is that you favor corporate-friendly strongman tyranny and despotism in Cambodia, as you favor it in Syria and Russia and everywhere - it's part of your "libertarian" worldview ... That and you believe the State-dominated media of Cambodia about their "targeting".

It becomes interesting - will you ever make even a single correct guess about what I think? No, you can not make any conclusion about this, because I do not favor at all the actual regime in Cambodia. Why? Simply because I don't know enough about it to make any positive or negative conclusions. So I'm simply neutral. That he has now abandoned a multi-party democratic system is not a point which matters to me, I do not even participate in elections where I would be allowed to vote.

My libertarianism is involved - but in a quite different way. I prefer local rule to central rule. The smaller the region ruled by one entity, the better. So, Hun Sen ruling over Cambodia is better than Obama ruling over Cambodia. Many local tribes ruling over their tribe area in Cambodia would be even better, and families inside the tribe about their own business instead of the tribal leaders even more. So, no, I do not prefer any local strongmen, they are only less evil than the global strongman Obama, that's all.

Even more nonsensical is the guess that I would believe Cambodian media. I have never read them, I don't know the language so that I have not even an inducement to think about their reliability.

And that all of your claimed opposition to "corporatism" is bullshit. But we knew that already.

You made already similar nonsensical claims. This posting contained nothing about corporatism, so you have no base at all to make this claim.

The way you know that he is "doing nothing" and will do "nothing" (where Obama was doing what?), is the same way you know everything else about US politics - by your "good methods" for "extracting" from your favorite propaganda.

Of course, to get the information I use my methods to get information. Your method of "argumentation" remembers one which has not even impressed me when I was a schoolboy believing communist nonsense. All that one needs is to translate your bad words back into neutral words, in this particular case even simplified because all one needs to do is to remove the scare quotes.

So: what does the propaganda extraction say about pipelines in Syria, after the latest advances, now that Putin seems to be making good progress toward establishing a client State there?

Try it yourself, I have described the methods. I have not tried to extract information about your fantasies.

 

[iceaura]

It becomes interesting - will you ever make even a single correct guess about what I think?

I'm observing what you post - not guessing. If it's not what you think, ok.

Even more nonsensical is the guess that I would believe Cambodian media.

You reposted their claims about Hun Sen's behavior, and argued from them as if from factual reality.

So, no, I do not prefer any local strongmen, they are only less evil than the global strongman Obama, that's all.

That's called a preference. You consistently post a preference for strongmen like Hun Sen over functioning democracies - including the ones they are replacing.

Including in Russia, and Syria. (And the US).

 

[Schmelzer]

You reposted their claims about Hun Sen's behavior, and argued from them as if from factual reality.

Means you have not read the link? What I have reposted was from an FP article by some Clintonoid angry about this. (The "Clintonoid" I use out of fun, especially for you, given that you like it so much, just to clarify this.)

Given that I like to post, in argumentations with US puppets, from US media, learn also another thing: That I quote something does not automatically mean I support it myself.

That's called a preference. You consistently post a preference for strongmen like Hun Sen over functioning democracies - including the ones they are replacing.

As explained, a "functioning democracy" is indeed nothing I value. Instead, I value sovereignty of whatever state in comparison with US vassal status. That the globalists will name everybody who refuses to submit a "strongman" or other bad words, and claim that such a sovereign state is not a democracy (if there are no strong enough US puppets to win elections) and has no free press (if there is a strong enough own press and the US-controlled press does not rule, so that a US media campaign is unable to reach anything) is clear and obvious. But it does in no way follow that somebody who prefers sovereign states to US vassals prefers "strongmen" or so.

In fact, this is a nice propaganda technic you use. I prefer A in comparison with B. You disagree, you like B and hate A. What you do? You give A a bad name, X, and B a good name, Y. And then you say that I prefer X in comparison with Y. With X being something bad, and Y good.

 

[CptBork]

"US vassal state" = Any country where the people prefer burgers over borscht

 

[iceaura]

Means you have not read the link? What I have reposted was from an FP article by some Clintonoid angry about this

You might be more wary of believing Cambodian government media feeds if you avoided your hypnotic trigger words. In particular, you might be able to recognize them.

As explained, a "functioning democracy" is indeed nothing I value. Instead, I value sovereignty of whatever state in comparison with US vassal status.

You mistake functioning democracy for vassal status, and therefore oppose it in favor of strongman despotism - regardless of sovereignty. Hun Sen, for example, has apparently leased almost half his country's land area and much of its resource base to foreign corporate interests (especially the neighboring Chinese, traditional enemies). Cambodia's sovereignty is severely restricted by this, and its submission to these corporate interests as it is looted assured - on smaller scales this is a common practice of organized crime syndicates, and goes by various names, including "bust-out" when it's a quick score.

That the globalists will name everybody who refuses to submit a "strongman" or other bad words, and claim that such a sovereign state is not a democracy (if there are no strong enough US puppets to win elections) and has no free press (if there is a strong enough own press and the US-controlled press does not rule, so that a US media campaign is unable to reach anything) is clear and obvious.

And completely irrelevant, in this case. Why do you post irrelevancies?

But it does in no way follow that somebody who prefers sovereign states to US vassals prefers "strongmen" or so.

Nevertheless - whether it "follows" or not - you do.

. I prefer A in comparison with B. You disagree, you like B and hate A.

I can't think of a single example of that situation on this forum.

In fact, this is a nice propaganda technic you use.

You are the one posting Cambodian state media feeds as reality.
And the governing Republican Party, in the US.

And Russian government, in Syria. Aside from the maps, of course.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not much new in Syria, except for some small movements in North Hama / West Aleppo, where the Syrian army fights against Hatesh (Al Qaida), and some progress fighting ISIS. An overall map of Syria and Iraq:

shows that the end of ISIS is close. The Iraqis start to clear now the remaining desert regions yet under ISIS control, and this seems to be sufficiently easy, they reach a quite good temp:

Iceaura became completely confused, probably triggered by my use of "Clintonoids", and started to post mafia film sequences.

Maybe for some Americans such things are useful information, other people know more about such mafia practices from real life, as it was common in the Yeltsin time in Russia (when everything was fine with Russia from the US point of view) or the Ukraine (where the situation became even worse under the rule of the fascist US-puppets ruling now).

You mistake functioning democracy for vassal status, and therefore oppose it in favor of strongman despotism - regardless of sovereignty. Hun Sen, for example, has apparently leased almost half his country's land area and much of its resource base to foreign corporate interests (especially the neighboring Chinese, traditional enemies). Cambodia's sovereignty is severely restricted by this

I don't know if such things were common in Cambodia when the American influence was stronger than today. But the analogon of organized crime is the state itself, not foreign firms which need a permission of the state for everything they want to do. Of course, American firms are known to behave inappropriately in foreign countries - based on the US support they have, and the vassal status of the governments. But this presupposes US vassal status. In sovereign states, even US firms have to behave appropriately. One cannot exclude, of course, that the Chinese use similar practices of supporting Chinese firms doing criminal things in foreign countries. But, as far as I know, this is not the Chinese tradition. They leave their firms alone. Chinese people are clever enough to become strong and rich in foreign countries even without state pressure. State pressure would heavily increase anti-Chinese local prejudices, which are anyway strong, and can easily lead to anti-Chinese pogroms and so on. So, the Chinese leave, outside China itself, the political power to the locals, and are happy if the locals don't start pogroms.

You are the one posting Cambodian state media feeds as reality.

Wow, FP is Cambodian state media. That's new to me. I thought it is a NATO propaganda paper. Here, again, the link: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/17...st-one-party-state-china-democracy-dictators/

Whatever, if some state media give more reliable information than your NATO propaganda media (which is easy, and happens often enough), why not posting them? I will post information which is either more or less reliable or allows me to make a point (like involuntary admissions of uncomfortable facts even from some unreliable propaganda sources).

 

[iceaura]

I don't know if such things were common in Cambodia when the American influence was stronger than today.

Because you didn't read your own links? Those are developments under Hun Sen.

But the analogon of organized crime is the state itself, not foreign firms which need a permission of the state for everything they want to do

You simply cannot see it.

Of course, American firms are known to behave inappropriately in foreign countries - based on the US support they have, and the vassal status of the governments. But this presupposes US vassal status

Also - historically - Dutch firms, English firms, Spanish firms, Belgian firms, French firms, and so forth. Now we see Chinese, Japanese, and Russian corporations taking the reins. And the target countries involved are of course subservient to the corporations, and require their cooperation, and acquiesce to their demands, because these corporations can summon either "soft" or "hard" power of various kinds (including from their governmental affiliations, of course, but that's clumsy and slow - in practice the important aspect is that their respective governments do nothing). Hun Sen is not going to be denying "permission" to the Chinese corporate interests he is selling half of Cambodia (including its citizenry) to, and he is not going to be protecting the Cambodian citizenry from them.

"Vassal" status is pre-industrial, old-fashioned, unnecessary, and inefficient - it's what the rich and powerful did before the corporation was invented. It involves taxes and tribute - corporations don't like that. The history of Honduras, for example, is not one of Honduras becoming a vassal State. It is one of Honduras becoming a "banana republic" - subservient to the United Fruit Company - and struggling to escape.

Whatever, if some state media give more reliable information

You believe them (you post their feeds as aspects of reality, from which you argue) regardless of reliability, which you cannot evaluate in the first place. That's how you end up posting things like those Hillaryhate videos, or Cambodian State-PR media descriptions of Hun Sen,

or descriptions of Russia's Syrian involvements that omit pipeline deals and petro politics generally.

 

[Schmelzer]

Because you didn't read your own links? Those are developments under Hun Sen.

If you read something in FP, it does not mean that it is true. As explained several times, I live in a world where I have no sources which I can simply trust. Some "all other states/corporations are equally evil" disposed of.

"Vassal" status is pre-industrial, old-fashioned, unnecessary, and inefficient - it's what the rich and powerful did before the corporation was invented. It involves taxes and tribute - corporations don't like that. The history of Honduras, for example, is not one of Honduras becoming a vassal State. It is one of Honduras becoming a "banana republic" - subservient to the United Fruit Company - and struggling to escape.

The point being? As if I would mean if I name actually existing states "US vassal states" some ancient formal status as a vassal state. Some usual "you know nothing" disposed of.

You have yet not given any information about the details of your Russian involvement in Syrian pipelines.

And I would ask you not to post American fantasy films in a thread about military events in Syria, where they are off-topic.

 

[CptBork]

If you read something in FP, it does not mean that it is true. As explained several times, I live in a world where I have no sources which I can simply trust. Some "all other states/corporations are equally evil" disposed of.

You'd eat a poop sandwich if Putin told you it tastes good, that's how much you trust him (or are willing to lie on his behalf).

And I would ask you not to post American fantasy films in a thread about military events in Syria, where they are off-topic.

You've been asked a zillion times to stop posting Kremlin fantasy novels which are off-topic in every universe except Narnia, but you keep doing it anyhow.

 

[iceaura]

If you read something in FP, it does not mean that it is true. As explained several times, I live in a world where I have no sources which I can simply trust.

You do trust certain sources - you argue from them as if arguing from evidence.
The developments under Hun Sen were under Hun Sen - all sources agree on that point, including the ones you trust in other matters, so I pointed to one of them.

The point being? As if I would mean if I name actually existing states "US vassal states" some ancient formal status as a vassal state.

You do name actually existing States "vassal States", thereby perpetrating the confusion that they are vassal States.

And I would ask you not to post American fantasy films in a thread about military events in Syria, where they are off-topic.

You never see fascism - I thought maybe a simple illustration would help. Your very silly notion that the corporate interests in a situation like Cambodia's would be coming hat in hand to the government for permission to do stuff was most easily dealt with in that way.

You have yet not given any information about the details of your Russian involvement in Syrian pipelines.

That was your job, in analyzing the maps.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not much news, except that the Iraq army is successfully clearing yet another desert region from Daesh.

You do trust certain sources - you argue from them as if arguing from evidence.

This does not follow. First, I may not trust the source in general but trust a particular claim. Second, I can argue as if even if I don't think it is correct. For example, if I'm too lazy to write "let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that this claim is true" before starting the argument.

The developments under Hun Sen were under Hun Sen - all sources agree on that point, including the ones you trust in other matters, so I pointed to one of them.

The point being? Have I claimed whatever development mentioned was not under Hun Sen?

You do name actually existing States "vassal States", thereby perpetrating the confusion that they are vassal States.

You have been confused by this perpetration? Poor iceaura. I'm so sorry for you.

That was your job, in analyzing the maps.

It's not my job to support your fantasies.