Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[CptBork]

I'm not pinning "everything" on anybody.
I'm pinning the Iraq War, and the bulk of its consequences, on the people who promoted it, organized it, launched it, commanded it, made it happen as it did, justified it, and worked hard to prevent its reversal or cancellation or even moderation by others - including by damaging the institutions of US government which could otherwise have been so employed.

And I'm classifying most of current US policy in Syria as among the consequences of those people's policies and agenda, and that War.

Rebellions against the Assad clan have a much longer history than either Bush presidency, as do the regime's ultra-violent reactions. You're just trying to bend reality so everything fits into a convenient box with U.S. Republicans at fault for everything when in fact it's not the fault of any party in the U.S.

That's not capitalism. Lots of non-capitalist societies have thieving and parasitic aristocracies, bureaucracies, criminal organizations.

And when those parasites have money to spend that isn't available to the ordinary masses, they are living as capitalists.

State businesses are socialist enterprises.

They're not socialist enterprises when they're run for the personal benefit of Communist Party shareholders members.

They don't. They are instead often set up so that no one "has" wealth, in the first place, as a basic principle.

There is no self-proclaimed Communist or socialist society anywhere on the planet where wealth or property are evenly distributed. The USSR had a wealthy elite, and it's even worse in China.

Regardless: at least 90% of the country, including the vast bulk of the society and its fundamental organization, was by agreement of all, communist/socialist.
(A larger percentage than is capitalist, in the US).

It doesn't frigging matter what you label the bottom 90% guy, the point is they didn't have any money in the first place. The people who had the money were the ones making the rules, and they lived like capitalists, which makes them fascists in disguise. Even now, greedy Chinese pricks are talking about how Mao wanted them to hoard away millions of dollars and get fat just like him in the name of the people, that doesn't make them socialists.

The difference between the USSR and Russia today is that the elites controlling their society no longer try to plan the economic decisions of the 90% who have no money to spend anyhow. The majority of their economy today is still owned or controlled by the "state", but the state only represents a minority of the population just as it did back in the good 'ole commie days.

 

[iceaura]

Rebellions against the Assad clan have a much longer history than either Bush presidency, as do the regime's ultra-violent reactions.

An interesting topic, but I was talking about current US policy and military involvement.

You're just trying to bend reality so everything fits into a convenient box with U.S. Republicans at fault for everything when in fact it's not the fault of any party in the U.S.

I think current US policy and military involvement in Syria is largely the "fault" of the US people who developed and launched it, primarily in association with and as a consequence of the Iraq War. Who else?
- - -
tangent:

And when those parasites have money to spend that isn't available to the ordinary masses, they are living as capitalists

No, they aren't. They are living as rich people. One can be a parasite without being a capitalist, right?

They're not socialist enterprises when they're run for the personal benefit of Communist Party shareholders members.

Yes, they are.
Socialism is not a magic formula that eliminates self-dealing, greed, and unethical behavior.

There is no self-proclaimed Communist or socialist society anywhere on the planet where wealth or property are evenly distributed.

So?

It doesn't frigging matter what you label the bottom 90% guy, the point is they didn't have any money in the first place.

I'm not labeling the guy, I'm labeling the economic organization of the old Soviet Union.

The people who had the money were the ones making the rules, and they lived like capitalists, which makes them fascists in disguise.

If they were communists they were not fascists, and vice versa.
The Soviet Union was not fascist. There is no such thing as communist fascism, socialist fascism, or leftwing fascism.

The majority of their economy today is still owned or controlled by the "state"

Large chunks have been "privatized" - sold to capitalists, for capital.
Here is Gazprom's equity structure, for example: http://www.gazprom.com/investors/stock/structure/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273267/shareholder-structure-of-gazprom/
Note that its shares are bought and sold for capital - the State gained a majority share of ownership only recently, and by acquisition of stock rather than community status or identity. That was not how ownership was established in the old Soviet Union.

 

[CptBork]

If they were communists they were not fascists, and vice versa.

The USSR wasn't communist, that ultimately proved to be just a big charade to justify the establishment of the new elites.

Note that its shares are bought and sold for capital - the State gained a majority share of ownership only recently, and by acquisition of stock rather than community status or identity. That was not how ownership was established in the old Soviet Union.

Under the USSR you couldn't buy and sell factories, but you could be appointed to run one and then direct it to serve your personal ends. That's how the managers of the Soviet Union became the oligarchs who took it over when everything was privatized. Wealth was held and spent on an unofficial basis while officially most assets and property belonged to the state. Nowadays it's the opposite, you're allowed to be capitalist in the open but your wealth can be seized by the state any time Putin or his top supporters feel the need. In both cases, de facto ownership of everything belongs to the top officials running Russia just as it did in Soviet times. More wealth is generated today for those oligarchs because they can do open business with Western countries, and the economic structure of the country is permissive to higher profits.

 

[iceaura]

The USSR wasn't communist,

It was entirely socialist, and significantly communist within that.

that ultimately proved to be just a big charade to justify the establishment of the new elites.

I'm not following that - exactly how does an existing and verifiable economic structure organizing an industrial economy capable of fielding a modern military qualify as a "charade"?

Under the USSR you couldn't buy and sell factories

Or set wages, hire and fire according to demand, change product lines on your own tick, etc.
Hold that thought.

In both cases, de facto ownership of everything belongs to the top officials running Russia just as it did in Soviet times.

It didn't. You do not "de facto" own what you cannot sell, give away, convert to something completely different, manage as you please, or destroy.
You do own what can be taken away from you by a State on various pretexts, depending on legal infrastructure.

 

[CptBork]

It was entirely socialist, and significantly communist within that.

Calling yourself a socialist or a communist and organizing rural people into communes is not sufficient to actually be one, you also have to walk the walk and live as one personally.

I'm not following that - exactly how does an existing and verifiable economic structure organizing an industrial economy capable of fielding a modern military qualify as a "charade"?

Because the organization of that structure divided Soviet society into Communist Party elites and disenfranchised masses. Under true communism, the Communist Party was supposed to dissolve itself after overthrowing the Tsars and their supporters, not help themselves to the spoils of their victory.

Or set wages, hire and fire according to demand, change product lines on your own tick, etc.

Wages, production lines and worker hires were all decided by the Communist Party, largely through local delegates. Local delegates negotiated with central authorities for production targets and then set their own local policies according to those targets, therefore they behaved like a less competent version of corporate management. Furthermore, local party delegates running the factories and other industries had the freedom to mislead their superiors about production levels and capabilities while holding separate negotiations with the workers, and they were thereby enabled to extort and siphon generously off the system, leading ultimately to the establishment of the modern Russian oligarchy.

It didn't. You do not "de facto" own what you cannot sell, give away, convert to something completely different, manage as you please, or destroy.

Apart from its earliest days, the USSR ran a money-based economy. Clearly things were sold or given away, because Communist Party members had a lot more money than ordinary citizens and were able to spend it at their own discretion, through the black market, ordinary shops and exclusive government-run boutiques. They also had special resorts established exclusively for Communist Party members to spend their ill-gotten gains when vacationing. Like I say, many of the managerial positions handed out to Communist Party members were managed as they pleased for personal enrichment.

You do own what can be taken away from you by a State on various pretexts, depending on legal infrastructure.

You own what you control, regardless of whether you have a piece of paper saying so.

Anyhow you can rebut me once again if you like but I probably won't address it, as I don't feel like arguing anymore about how the Soviet Union and virtually everyone who has ever called themselves Communists or hardline socialists since, are in fact little more than self-entitled hypocrites who would be more appropriately labeled "Me-me-me-ists" rather than Maoists (although Mao himself was one of the greediest, fattest, most murderous sons of bitches to ever walk upon this planet).

 

[iceaura]

Calling yourself a socialist or a communist and organizing rural people into communes is not sufficient to actually be one, you also have to walk the walk and live as one personally.

The Soviet Union - the country, the nation, the thing being organized as an economy - was entirely socialist and significantly communist. This was the case if every single Soviet citizen was a card-carrying capitalist who dreamed of owning his own bank.

Under true communism, the Communist Party was supposed to dissolve itself after overthrowing the Tsars and their supporters, not help themselves to the spoils of their victory.

So?
And what in hell is "true communism" as opposed to any other kind?
You're talking about communism and socialism as if they were some kind of virtue of character or personal enlightenment. They're just categories of economic organization.

Wages, production lines and worker hires were all decided by the Communist Party, largely through local delegates.

Exactly. By social entities, representatives of a community, acting as such. Not by the owner or representative of capital.

You own what you control, regardless of whether you have a piece of paper saying so.

No, you don't. Managers do not own factories, tenants do not own farmland, squatters do not own their own houses. An Ojibwe netting fish in a tribally controlled bay of Lake Mille Lacs does not own a single minnow. The guy leasing shop space in a strip mall for his business cannot borrow a nickel on the equity. The difference is critical - Hernando de Soto, among other economists, points to the effects of ownership, of having that piece of paper: it changes the workings of the entire economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lions-in-dead-capital-economist-idUSKCN10C1C1

 

[CptBork]

The difference is critical - Hernando de Soto, among other economists, points to the effects of ownership, of having that piece of paper: it changes the workings of the entire economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...lions-in-dead-capital-economist-idUSKCN10C1C1

Do Mafia capos have to sign notarized contracts when they divide their earnings and share their investments? Is that how they decide what everyone gets to own and use?

 

[iceaura]

Do Mafia capos have to sign notarized contracts when they divide their earnings and share their investments? Is that how they decide what everyone gets to own and use?

Mafia capos do not normally own their jobs.
They do, often, own their houses and cars - in capitalist systems, anyway.
So?

How the suboptimal ownership arrangements in Syria affected the Syrian economy, setting the stage for internal conflict and generations of poverty and eventually contributing to the mess it's in now, might be interesting.

 

[Schmelzer]

Senator Richard Black from Virginia made another trip to Syria and gave an interesting interview to SANA. Here is some old video from the time of the Aleppo fight, a quite good summary of the Syrian war:

The Israeli support for various terrorist groups has now made it into Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/0...ed-and-funded-rebel-groups-in-southern-syria/

Do Mafia capos have to sign notarized contracts when they divide their earnings and share their investments?

You seem to mingle very different forms of control.

In the Soviet Union, there was ownership by the state. The director of a fabric did not own it. Not even informal. Because he could not be sure if tomorrow he gets a new position somewhere else, possibly far away. The resulting problem was that of big companies, multiplied by the fact that this was a very big company. The problem is that the low range administrators have very different interests than to improve the situation in the fabric they administer. (Moreover, it was multiplied by the problem that there was no simple way to find out if that manager has done good work or not, because the fabric did not sell on the market what it produced and therefore did not make a profit.)

The Mafia capos do own something - they make claims for ownership (say, they "own" a region, meaning that they have the monopoly right to sell drugs there) and defend them with their weapons against competing gangs if necessary. What develops on this base is a contract economy, but a quite inferior one, where contracts hold only as long as the other side is strong enough. This prevents more complex economic constructions, and keeps the criminal economy low level. Because of this, the mafia is not really powerful if not backed by some other, political forces. Nonetheless, this is ownership.

Then there is private ownership supported by the state. The only form of ownership iceaura names ownership.

 

[iceaura]

Then there is private ownership supported by the state. The only form of ownership iceaura names ownership.

That's not true.
It's strange thing to say, after all these pages of my insisting on the importance of the difference between capital owned and socially owned resources - but consistent with an agenda of obscuring fascism, and dissociating capital ownership from any alliance with despotic governance.

What develops on this base is a contract economy, but a quite inferior one, where contracts hold only as long as the other side is strong enough.

In other words, no contracts. Promises, agreements, deals.

This prevents more complex economic constructions, and keeps the criminal economy low level.

No, it doesn't. All that is necessary is that one capo become strong enough, for long enough, to form a government with power over the rest.

There were contracts in Syria, under Assad, for example. And in Cuba, before Castro.

 

[CptBork]

The Israeli support for various terrorist groups has now made it into Foreign Policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/0...ed-and-funded-rebel-groups-in-southern-syria/

Where does it say anything about any of those groups being terrorists, Yuri?

 

[sculptor]

lol

 

[iceaura]

Where does it say anything about any of those groups being terrorists, Yuri?

Regardless of this or that group's status, that the US and Israel (and Saudi Arabia, et al) have been supporting fanatical Sunni terrorists against Iran is long time common knowledge - and some of them have become involved in Syria.

 

[CptBork]

Regardless of this or that group's status, that the US and Israel (and Saudi Arabia, et al) have been supporting fanatical Sunni terrorists against Iran is long time common knowledge - and some of them have become involved in Syria.

As far as I can tell, none of the groups mentioned in the referenced article were described as terrorists, nor are any terrorist acts attributed to them. They were apparently armed, paid and supported to fight Hezbollah and ISIS on the border, both of which are recognized as terrorist groups throughout the West. The former is a Russian ally and will only be considered terrorist if it bombs Moscow in the future, the latter is recognized by Russia as terrorist but was considered a lesser priority than the evil murderous women, children and medical rescuers holding out in Aleppo and East Ghouta. Even Yuri has dedicated more propaganda to undermining medical rescuers than ISIS, so Israel was perfectly entitled to act for its own security.

Which fanatical Sunni terrorists are Israel and its allies supporting against Iran? It can't be Al Qaida, because Iran has already been known to cooperate with them against mutual enemies and still hosts some of their top leaders, including members of the Bin Laden family still active in the business.

On the subject of real terror, Russia's hired terrorists are threatening another attack on US forces at At Tanf. Based on the outcome of the last engagement, I really do hope they try.

 

[iceaura]

As far as I can tell, none of the groups mentioned in the referenced article were described as terrorists, nor are any terrorist acts attributed to them.

Referenced article? Described by whom?
The Sunni bad guys are denied, hidden, disowned, and unnamed, but the pattern - the US/Israeli record of handing money and guns and general support to almost anyone attacking Iran in any way - is common knowledge.
MEK, for example:

MEK is currently designated as a terrorist organization by Japan and Iraq aside from Iran, and was considered a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom and the European Union until 2008 and 2009 respectively, and by Canada and the United States until 2012.

 

[CptBork]

Referenced article? Described by whom?
The Sunni bad guys are denied, hidden, disowned, and unnamed, but the pattern - the US/Israeli record of handing money and guns and general support to almost anyone attacking Iran in any way - is common knowledge.
MEK, for example:

The MEK aren't Islamic fundamentalists, and their war is against a racist unelected dictatorship. Where are the baby killers like the ones Russia and Iran support?

 

[iceaura]

The MEK aren't Islamic fundamentalists

So?

and their war is against a racist unelected dictatorship.

And that is their justification for their terrorism - terrorism supported by the US and Israel.

On the subject of real terror, Russia's hired terrorists are threatening another attack on US forces at At Tanf

Guerrilla assaults on combat forces in a war zone are terrorism?

 

[CptBork]

Guerrilla assaults on combat forces in a war zone are terrorism?

No, supporting a fascist regime committing genocide and displacing 1/2 the country's population is terrorism. If they choose to have a go at US forces fighting a real war on terror, and they get obliterated as a result, that's just karma.

 

[Schmelzer]

FUKUS wants to escalate the war in Syria, writes https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...sponse-if-syria-uses-chemical-weapons-bolton/

Given that the gas attack will come anyway, everything is prepared, the news is that the attack will be much stronger than the last time. So, another round of something close to the start of WW III at least in the media. That there will be a counterstrike, probably against Al Tanf, is also already declared by the Syrian side.

Then there is private ownership supported by the state. The only form of ownership iceaura names ownership.

That's not true.
It's strange thing to say, after all these pages of my insisting on the importance of the difference between capital owned and socially owned resources - but consistent with an agenda of obscuring fascism, and dissociating capital ownership from any alliance with despotic governance.

Sorry, but my remark has nothing to do with your minor quibbles about who owns it, it was about your insistence that without government there is no such a thing as ownership. Have you completely forgotten our argumentation about ownership in an anarchy/libertarian society?

Your creating a "no contracts" strawman and then killing him is not worth to be commented as well as that cheap US propaganda by CptBork.

 

[Quantum Quack]

FUKUS wants to escalate the war in Syria, writes https://www.almasdarnews.com/articl...sponse-if-syria-uses-chemical-weapons-bolton/

Given that the gas attack will come anyway, everything is prepared, the news is that the attack will be much stronger than the last time. So, another round of something close to the start of WW III at least in the media. That there will be a counterstrike, probably against Al Tanf, is also already declared by the Syrian side.

There is a media rumor that Syria has authorized the use of "non-lethal" chlorine gas in large quantities as a strategic weapon. If and I mean if, that were true what would be the West 's response given it's intended non-lethal use, do you think?
(Chlorine: presumably for it's irritant value)
(there would be no doubt as to who was using what, given the sheer scale of what has been rumored. btw)