Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Feel free to believe that he has found something valuable.

Trump has been an obvious crook all his life. Nobody needs Mueller to know that.

But, first, mems are nice simplifications but can be as true and as false as other, more complex expressions.

Sure. But you post silly agitprop ones, from well known rightwing US media operations.

And it is a well-known propaganda method to name simple facts one does not like enemy propaganda.

And it is a well known fact that these silly propaganda memes you keep posting here are bs from US professional media operations with long track records of playing the ignorant for suckers.

You are an ignorant, gullible, sucker incapable of evaluating US professional agitprop. Your only hope is to avoid it.

The main problem with ignoring Russian cultural power is that you have no idea about the meaning of culture and think that what America sells with Hollywood is what civilized people name "culture".

The Putin fanboy tells the American what the American is thinking, and lectures the forum about "civilization".
I'm not ignoring Russian cultural influence. I'm just pointing to the fact that it doesn't have much, especially compared with China or India or the US. (Or Italy, Spain, Japan, Germany, the British Isles, pick one).
And its economy is about the size of Italy's, without the productivity - it's based on extraction, like some Middle East or Central African resource cursed despotism.

The results about the Russian internet agency were simply laughable and completely fit into the "three felonies a day" mem because there was no crime beyond using some fake names.

That's nonsense. They were indicted for stuff that carries jail time, and is impossible to do by accident or without criminal intent. And they were indicted by strategy - not because there is any hope of Russia abiding by international law and prosecuting them or extraditing them, but as a legal basis for obtaining documentation of the crimes committed by Trump and his familia. That's how organized criminal enterprises are rolled up.
- - - -

You don't like this situation? Your fault. Putin was the Russian reaction to the NATO bombing Belgrad. Blame yourself. If you would have behaved in an adequate way, there would be an acceptable unipolar world even today.

If you would stick to what you know something about, like that, you would make many fewer absurd posts.
The US did indeed throw away its unique opportunity to always do good, and lead rather than coerce and corrupt. Syrian US involvement is part of that failure.
But Trump is more of that same bad road - and perhaps even more dangerous, even in Syria (one of the countries Trump was interested in using nuclear weapons on, when he first took office).

 

[LaurieAG]

I hope you're referring to Soviet corruption bringing them down from within, in which case incompetence was also an issue. Of course America deals with corruption like every other nation on the globe, but I have a hard time seeing how you can get much worse than Stalin and everyone who followed after him.

Aside from that you can also add derivatives, short selling and quantative easing which were almost non existent prior to the end of the cold war.

After all, why bother to run an engine of industry when it is much more profitable to just continually suck the grease out of the bearings, knowing that when it gets low it will replaced at great public expense?

 

[Schmelzer]

Trump has been an obvious crook all his life. Nobody needs Mueller to know that.

Which is obviously enough to impeach him, not?

But you post silly agitprop ones, from well known rightwing US media operations.
And it is a well known fact that these silly propaganda memes you keep posting here are bs from US professional media operations with long track records of playing the ignorant for suckers.
You are an ignorant, gullible, sucker incapable of evaluating US professional agitprop. Your only hope is to avoid it.

So what? I do not care about ad hominem arguments. Unfortunately, you have no other arguments than ad hominem and childish name-calling like "Putin-fanboy".

I'm not ignoring Russian cultural influence. I'm just pointing to the fact that it doesn't have much, especially compared with China or India or the US. (Or Italy, Spain, Japan, Germany, the British Isles, pick one).
And its economy is about the size of Italy's, without the productivity - it's based on extraction, like some Middle East or Central African resource cursed despotism.

This may be if you measure "influence" (instead of cultural power itself) by the influence on actual Western media. The "size of Italy" mem is for those who care about GDP in dollars. Which is, in the case of Russia, quite heavily distorting the picture because the ruble is (intentionally) artificially low.

That's nonsense. They were indicted for stuff that carries jail time, and is impossible to do by accident or without criminal intent. And they were indicted by strategy - not because there is any hope of Russia abiding by international law and prosecuting them or extraditing them, but as a legal basis for obtaining documentation of the crimes committed by Trump and his familia. That's how organized criminal enterprises are rolled up.

Using names of other people and open bank accounts in the name of these people is, of course, a crime itself. And, given that doing such things allows organizing serious crimes, one can even understand that the penalties include jail. But in fact, nothing seriously harming anybody was done with these faked bank accounts. People have paid for advertising, and the advertising itself was provided. So, all the deception was that they thought they pay some Americans, but they paid some Russians. Big deal.
But this part was completely unrelated to that claimed conspiracy to influence the elections, which made the whole thing politically interesting. And this politically interesting thing is what remains if one ignores the opening of the bank accounts and that the pseudonyms they used in the net were names of real people.
That the indictment was a strategy, I agree. But simply a political strategy, of presenting at least something when nothing serious has been found. Trump and his family are completely unrelated to this small private advertising firm, so that this has nothing to do with methods of fighting organized crime.

The US did indeed throw away its unique opportunity to always do good, and lead rather than coerce and corrupt. ... But Trump is more of that same bad road - and perhaps even more dangerous,

The failure was not about "always do good", politics is always about interests. The failure was that the US had the opportunity to be the leader of a unipolar world, a quite comfortable position which gives a lot of additional income. If handled appropriately, they could have had this additional income for a long time, if not forever. They misused, overused the related opportunities, and have created, as a consequence, sufficiently serious opposition to the unipolar world order, which finally caused its destruction.

Trump is about something different, namely about the ways to handle the collapse of the unipolar world order. There are two strategies to handle this:

The first is the attempt to reestablish the unipolar world order, by aggression against the other poles, Russia and China, possibly up to starting a war. Which is what Hillary is fighting for. And this is a really dangerous way.

The alternative is to accept the fact of its collapse and to minimize the harm for the US itself. Which is what Trump's MAGA is about. In particular, this includes a transformation of the political influence into money by various forms of blackmail, open political pressure. One can do such things once, after this the political influence it lost, because this is a soft power, which works only if used moderately.

So, there is indeed an element of Trump doing "more of the same bad road" - overusing the US soft power and thereby destroying it continues in an even more intensive way. But the background is a different one - what has been done by Clinton, Bush, Obama was endangering and finally destroying the unipolar world order. For Trump, the harm is already done, the world is multipolar now. So, doing the same again, even in a much more open way, and therefore destroying the soft power necessary for a unipolar world order in a much more serious way, can no longer harm the unipolar world order.

 

[CptBork]

This may be if you measure "influence" (instead of cultural power itself) by the influence on actual Western media. The "size of Italy" mem is for those who care about GDP in dollars. Which is, in the case of Russia, quite heavily distorting the picture because the ruble is (intentionally) artificially low.

Nice try, but GDP is not based on the value of the ruble, which itself is decided by what investors are willing to pay for it. You take all the goods and services Russia produces and sell them on the US market, and you'll find their total value is like 10% of what America produces in the same time period. I know, I know, there are a few flaws there like borsht not being valued more than gold by weight, but it's generally a pretty accurate indicator of how much stuff your country makes and how good it is.

What you should be critical of instead is the PPP (purchasing power parity) version of GDP, which ridiculously assumes that the prices of rice, coffee, and even electricity would stay exactly the same even if demand suddenly tripled overnight, thereby making China look like it's about to gobble up half the planet.

Using names of other people and open bank accounts in the name of these people is, of course, a crime itself. And, given that doing such things allows organizing serious crimes, one can even understand that the penalties include jail. But in fact, nothing seriously harming anybody was done with these faked bank accounts. People have paid for advertising, and the advertising itself was provided. So, all the deception was that they thought they pay some Americans, but they paid some Russians. Big deal.

No, the deception comes from Russians being paid to deliberately spread lies and incite conflict in the US just as you're attempting to do, working from a script provided by Putin and his subordinates. Your interference in US politics is more than anything America has done in Ukraine to date, yet for some supposedly completely mysterious reason, you only care about the latter.

Trump is about something different, namely about the ways to handle the collapse of the unipolar world order. There are two strategies to handle this

The first is the attempt to reestablish the unipolar world order, by aggression against the other poles, Russia and China, possibly up to starting a war. Which is what Hillary is fighting for. And this is a really dangerous way.

The alternative is to accept the fact of its collapse and to minimize the harm for the US itself. Which is what Trump's MAGA is about. In particular, this includes a transformation of the political influence into money by various forms of blackmail, open political pressure. One can do such things once, after this the political influence it lost, because this is a soft power, which works only if used moderately.

So, there is indeed an element of Trump doing "more of the same bad road" - overusing the US soft power and thereby destroying it continues in an even more intensive way. But the background is a different one - what has been done by Clinton, Bush, Obama was endangering and finally destroying the unipolar world order. For Trump, the harm is already done, the world is multipolar now. So, doing the same again, even in a much more open way, and therefore destroying the soft power necessary for a unipolar world order in a much more serious way, can no longer harm the unipolar world order.

Funny that you don't seem to have any objections whenever Russia resorts to aggression as a substitute for the soft power it doesn't have, much like a frustrated rapist who can't get the woman he wants by other means because of his tiny soft appendage. Wouldn't it be in Russia's best interests to acknowledge the collapse of its empire and the impending collapse of its economic and military livelihood? Or do they all just look forward to spending the rest of their lives delivering pizza to people from better countries, and spending their spare time doing fake physics and trolling US news sites en route?

 

[iceaura]

Which is obviously enough to impeach him, not?

Sure.

But in fact, nothing seriously harming anybody was done with these faked bank accounts. People have paid for advertising, and the advertising itself was provided. So, all the deception was that they thought they pay some Americans, but they paid some Russians. Big deal.

They thought they paid some Russians, it wasn't advertising they paid for, and they did a great deal of harm to anyone who depends on the US system of elections and governance. Whether that is a big deal or not I leave to the US courts and jury trial.

That the indictment was a strategy, I agree. But simply a political strategy, of presenting at least something when nothing serious has been found.

It is the standard approach to rolling up the top guys in an organized criminal operation. If the guy wasn't President, there'd be no issue.
And if there were nothing serious found, there would be no plea deals with lower level criminals - they would simply stand in court for their crimes.
- - -

So what? I do not care about ad hominem arguments.

None appears. Like most victims of wingnut agitprop, you don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

The failure was not about "always do good", politics is always about interests. The failure was that the US had the opportunity to be the leader of a unipolar world, a quite comfortable position which gives a lot of additional income.

The interests of the US and its people were best furthered by an always do good strategy, which was its best hope of leading a unipolar world or joining a multipolar one. That was a unique situation, an opportunity that will not recur for a very long time.

For Trump, the harm is already done, the world is multipolar now. So, doing the same again, even in a much more open way, and therefore destroying the soft power necessary for a unipolar world order in a much more serious way, can no longer harm the unipolar world order.

Harm to the unipolar world order is not the concern, with Trump. Harm to the people who live in the world is.

Trump is about something different, namely about the ways to handle the collapse of the unipolar world order.

You're so cute when you start talking about this "Trump" of yours - this guy who has strategies and ideologies and ways to handle complex geopolitical situations, this guy who is "about" things other than himself.
I know why the Trump base likes Putin, but I have no idea why Putin fans think Trump is going to break only the stuff they don't like.

The alternative is to accept the fact of its collapse and to minimize the harm for the US itself. Which is what Trump's MAGA is about.

Trump's MAGA has absolutely nothing to do with acceptance, or minimizing harm. It is about willful dominance and self aggrandizement.
His actions in Syria should be interpreted with that in mind.

 

[Schmelzer]

There has always been a lot of infighting between the various factions of the jihadist terrorists. But what has happened during the last days is that a quite large and important jihadist group, Nurredin al Zinki (those "moderate rebels" paid by the US who became famous by the video of headcutting a 12 yo boy) has now been almost completely destroyed by Hatesh (Al Qaida). Here a map of the region taken by Hatesh:

According to other sources, the blue area attributed here to the pro-Turkish "national liberation front" is much too large, and, moreover, Hatesh has reached here also great advances, in particular taking Maarat al Numan. Other maps look like the following:

They thought they paid some Russians, it wasn't advertising they paid for, and they did a great deal of harm to anyone who depends on the US system of elections and governance.

???????? The fake accounts have been created by the Russians to receive payments from Americans. Those payments came from Americans thinking they paid Americans, not Russians, but they thought correctly that they pay for advertising and received that advertising.

The more interesting point is, of course, the claimed harm. This harm is fantasy, the bots simply participated in many different communities, repeating the most popular mems which were already present in these communities to get followers. Having a lot of followers made them interesting for providing advertisements. So, it is equivalent to the harm everybody is creating by participation in discussions if he repeats there claims which are already popular in that community to gain followers. And I would care about this being a major crime.

Whether that is a big deal or not I leave to the US courts and jury trial.

Which shows you have been played by Mueller.

It is the standard approach to rolling up the top guys in an organized criminal operation. If the guy wasn't President, there'd be no issue.

What is done against Manafort and the other guys in the Trump environment is, indeed, the standard way of the organized crime named US justice to fight competitors. But the attack against the Russian advertising firm is not. Here, the only aim is propaganda, and the only base one can use this for propaganda is, beyond the stupidity of the Western propaganda victims, that the owner of a much bigger conglomerate which contains also this advertising firm is a person personally known to Putin. Big deal.

And if there were nothing serious found, there would be no plea deals with lower level criminals - they would simply stand in court for their crimes.

Plea deals work only because people (all people, not only criminals) know that a court is a very dangerous thing and that you can end for life behind bars for nothing if you risk this instead of accepting the plea deal. The plea deal is, in fact, usually what can be proven. For the much heavier accusations which one avoids by accepting the plea deal there is usually not much evidence, else it would be part of the plea deal itself. But even some weak indicators, professionally presented to the laymen sitting in the jury, are far too dangerous to risk this. So, the plea bargain system is essentially a system to avoid courts. All you need for this is to have horrible penalties for essentially nothing in the books.

None appears. Like most victims of wingnut agitprop, you don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

To name many of your answers "ad hominem" is, indeed, a compliment which makes them look more serious. Ad hominem arguments are, last but not least, arguments, even if only weak. Your "you are stupid" rants are most of the time nothing but rants. They do not care at all about the argument I have proposed so that one cannot really say that they are directed against these arguments. And they contain no evidence that I'm stupid, they are simply empty claims. But, given that this is an error in your favor, don't whine.

Harm to the unipolar world order is not the concern, with Trump. Harm to the people who live in the world is.

If you care about harm to the people, then Obama/Clinton/Bush have destroyed several countries starting illegal wars against them, but Trump has not yet done such things.

You're so cute when you start talking about this "Trump" of yours - this guy who has strategies and ideologies and ways to handle complex geopolitical situations, this guy who is "about" things other than himself.
I know why the Trump base likes Putin, but I have no idea why Putin fans think Trump is going to break only the stuff they don't like.

Trump is obviously playing by presenting himself as if he is stupid. The question if he is really that stupid so that he is simply unable to play an intelligent person, or if he is not that stupid, is not a really interesting one. Because there is a simple rule - if you want to predict something about the behavior of other people, start with the hypothesis that they are rational and follow some personal interest. This rule comes from economic science, as the explanation why one uses the homo economicus. So, I evaluate Trump based on the assumption that he is not as stupid as he presents himself. This may be wrong but is a quite safe strategy. If he is really stupid, you cannot predict anything. If you assume he is rational, and correctly identify his interest, you can predict something. The only error is that the prediction may be too accurate. But this is an error about the accuracy of the prediction, not about the direction of the prediction.

Trump's MAGA has absolutely nothing to do with acceptance, or minimizing harm. It is about willful dominance and self aggrandizement.
His actions in Syria should be interpreted with that in mind.

It does not care about acceptance by or minimizing harm for the rest of the world. It cares openly only about the US. Finally, of course, only about himself. But his power bases are some people in the US and some US-based industries.

 

[CptBork]

???????? The fake accounts have been created by the Russians to receive payments from Americans. Those payments came from Americans thinking they paid Americans, not Russians, but they thought correctly that they pay for advertising and received that advertising.

Why would Russian companies need to fake their nationality if they're doing something perfectly harmless and legal?

The more interesting point is, of course, the claimed harm. This harm is fantasy, the bots simply participated in many different communities, repeating the most popular mems which were already present in these communities to get followers. Having a lot of followers made them interesting for providing advertisements. So, it is equivalent to the harm everybody is creating by participation in discussions if he repeats there claims which are already popular in that community to gain followers. And I would care about this being a major crime.

They could have gained tons of followers by talking up all the criticism against Putin too, but for some reason their algorithms never detected the opportunity.

Because there is a simple rule - if you want to predict something about the behavior of other people, start with the hypothesis that they are rational and follow some personal interest. This rule comes from economic science, as the explanation why one uses the homo economicus. So, I evaluate Trump based on the assumption that he is not as stupid as he presents himself.

So you form predictions by disregarding the evidence, because you think that predictions can't be made on any other basis except wild baseless speculation. How very scientific of you.

This may be wrong but is a quite safe strategy. If he is really stupid, you cannot predict anything. If you assume he is rational, and correctly identify his interest, you can predict something.

If he really is stupid, you can predict that he will do stupid things, such as treating Russia like a significant global power and trying to cut deals with it.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why would Russian companies need to fake their nationality if they're doing something perfectly harmless and legal?

I have not said that it is legal (in the three felonies a day country everything may be illegal) or that it is perfectly harmless. It is deception, and the aim of the deception is a quite clear one. Russians participating openly as Russians in various American twitter communities would have a much harder job to gain followers, and even if they would have gained them, it would be harder for them to be paid for making advertisements in this community. The very point of placing advertisements in such a community is the effect that "this is our guy who says this is a good firm, I can trust him". Even if people would follow a Russian, this effect would be not that strong.

But for people who are not anti-Russian fascists like you, this deception is a quite harmless one - all that is deceived are quite irrational nationalist feelings.

They could have gained tons of followers by talking up all the criticism against Putin too, but for some reason their algorithms never detected the opportunity.

Sure they haven't? If they have, Mueller would not have mentioned it, for obvious propaganda reasons. And there are, of course, a lot of Russians making money that way, by repeating Western propaganda without caring about its content, because the West pays good money for this.
But, of course, one can reasonably expect that the Russians do not care about racism in the US and support, without hesitation, one day anti-white racisms, the other day anti-black racism, the next day multiculturalism, every time using a different pseudo, but nonetheless do not side with those who oppose their own personal positions (or those of the chef of the company). So I would not bet that they did such things, but not wonder if they did. We cannot know.

So you form predictions by disregarding the evidence, because you think that predictions can't be made on any other basis except wild baseless speculation. How very scientific of you.

The arguments for using the homo economicus in economic science are well-known and scientific arguments. I do not expect that you are able to understand them, they are too complex for you (or possibly not for you, but for this primitive fascist you play here - but this person is all I can use to make expectations about your abilities).

If he really is stupid, you can predict that he will do stupid things, such as treating Russia like a significant global power and trying to cut deals with it.

But the prediction "he makes stupid things" is not a prediction. It means no prediction at all because it does not even exclude doing things which are really good and reasonable simply by accident (like treating Russia as a significant military power one would better have peaceful relations to).

Ok, this argument is probably too complex for you, it requires some idea about the Popperian empirical content of predictions as a background.

 

[iceaura]

It means no prediction at all because it does not even exclude doing things which are really good and reasonable simply by accident (like treating Russia as a significant military power one would better have peaceful relations to).

There are many ways of treating Russia as a significant military power, and having peaceful relations with it. Trump will almost certainly - and not by chance, but by corruption and incompetence and bad motive - go wrong. What he did in Syria, for example, was irresponsible from a "peaceful relations" during "collapse" point of view - to appear flighty and unreliable and crazy is one of the tactics of offense and bullying, not prudent retrenchment surrounded by allies.

Which shows you have been played by Mueller.

Parrot.

Plea deals work only because people (all people, not only criminals) know that a court is a very dangerous thing and that you can end for life behind bars for nothing if you risk this instead of accepting the plea deal.

And since that is not true of rich and powerful people who have good lawyers and highly placed friends in the US, it is irrelevant here.
In that case, plea deals work only if the accused is 1) guilty as sin 2) has something to trade - usually an avoidance of time and expense, but in this case information of value to the prosecutor.

All you need for this is to have horrible penalties for essentially nothing in the books.

A piece of information you lack, in this case. You have little knowledge of US courts and judicial systems dealing with whitecollar crime - one reason you don't recognize what the Republican Party is trying to do to them.

The more interesting point is, of course, the claimed harm. This harm is fantasy, the bots simply participated in many different communities, repeating the most popular mems which were already present in these communities to get followers.

The harm was intentional - designed, built in, the reason for the whole operation. That's in the indictments.

If you care about harm to the people, then Obama/Clinton/Bush have destroyed several countries starting illegal wars against them, but Trump has not yet done such things.

Trump has just shut down the US government to get a refugee barrier built along the entire Mexican border, after ramping up ICE into a concentration camp operation. That is such a thing. And we're only two years in.
Meanwhile: W, mainly. And you always omit Reagan, Bush, etc.
But false equivalence is one of your standard tactics - as you parrot the wingnut memes, you inevitably include their poor reasoning as well as direct falsehoods.

Contrast the bs about US politics with the actually informed posting you have made about Syria. It's interesting, the effects of information.

 

[Schmelzer]

There are many ways of treating Russia as a significant military power, and having peaceful relations with it. Trump will almost certainly - and not by chance, but by corruption and incompetence and bad motive - go wrong. What he did in Syria, for example, was irresponsible from a "peaceful relations" during "collapse" point of view - to appear flighty and unreliable and crazy is one of the tactics of offense and bullying, not prudent retrenchment surrounded by allies.

It is quite possible that he will stop the removal completely, given that he has already extended the timing - he can easily slow down it to infinity. But he has no choice instead of doing it immediately and unexpected by the "allies" because else he gives the deep state time to prevent this, say, by organizing yet another fake gas attack by evil Assad.

And since that is not true of rich and powerful people who have good lawyers and highly placed friends in the US, it is irrelevant here.

If the attacker is powerful enough, even a good lawyer cannot prevent everything. So, it is relevant. Those guys in the Trump environment are rich enough to have good lawyers but nonetheless prefer the plea bargain. The good lawyer gives, at best, an equal chance. Which is, of course, much better than some 5% accidental chance of the pure black guy faced with some drug-related crime. But if the chance is 50% (it is not better once the other side has also good lawyers and are highly placed too) get 50 years in comparison with 5 years offered as a plea bargain, one will tend to accept the plea too.

In that case, plea deals work only if the accused has something to trade - usually an avoidance of time and expense, but in this case information of value to the prosecutor.

Every accused has something to trade, namely his insistence on the case being considered in the court, with some remaining risk for the prosecutor to lose. This is the point of the plea bargain. The particularities of the deal depending on the situation. Of course, if the accused is rich and has good lawyers and connections, the offer will be a better one. If the prosecutor is satisfied with a lie against the real target, the plea bargain may be even complete freedom, and even if the accused has no valuable information at all.

A piece of information you lack, in this case. You have little knowledge of US courts and judicial systems dealing with whitecollar crime - one reason you don't recognize what the Republican Party is trying to do to them.

Maybe. But given that you give no information at all, this remains open.

The harm was intentional - designed, built in, the reason for the whole operation. That's in the indictments.

But not at all in the evidence presented in the indictments.

Meanwhile: W, mainly. And you always omit Reagan, Bush, etc.

LOL, in an answer where I explicitly mentioned Bush.

Contrast the bs about US politics with the actually informed posting you have made about Syria. It's interesting, the effects of information.

Judging from the reactions of the participants of this forum, there is no difference at all. If there would be a real lack of information in one case and information in the other case, a difference would be easily detectable: other participants would present arguments containing the missing information.

 

[iceaura]

But he has no choice instead of doing it immediately and unexpected by the "allies" because else he gives the deep state time to prevent this, say, by organizing yet another fake gas attack by evil Assad.

Oh Deep State, is there nothing you cannot explain?
This is getting sillier. You do know that Trump announced it by tweet, yes?

If the attacker is powerful enough, even a good lawyer cannot prevent everything

They can prevent false accusation. And at no trouble to the rich and powerful - who do not even have to show up.

Maybe. But given that you give no information at all, this remains open.

Am I your only source of information? Your refusal to obtain information before assessing "propaganda" is explained, then. But not justified.

But not at all in the evidence presented in the indictments.

The grand jury disagreed. So did the judges involved. So did the prosecutor. And so do most readers of them. The indictments follow from the evidence - that's what an indictment is, in a US court.

Every accused has something to trade, namely his insistence on the case being considered in the court, with some remaining risk for the prosecutor to lose. This is the point of the plea bargain.

The prosecutor in this case has little or no chance of losing in court. That was not the point of those plea bargains.

If there would be a real lack of information in one case and information in the other case, a difference would be easily detectable: other participants would present arguments containing the missing information.

They do. You blow it off.
For example: pointing to your areas of ignorance when you have obviously overlooked them is informative - if you pay attention. You do not, in fact, know anything about climate change, for example. That should inform your posts, cause you to seek information before delivering assessments of (say) IPCC findings, and prevent you from posting wingnut agitprop fed to you by US fascist media operations. But it doesn't.
- - -

LOL, in an answer where I explicitly mentioned Bush.

You only mentioned one. I mentioned both. Whichever one you left out, along with Reagan, did much more war-starting than either Obama or Clinton. Either Clinton.
You posted a false equivalence, directly relevant to this thread. Why?

 

[Schmelzer]

Oh Deep State, is there nothing you cannot explain? This is getting sillier. You do know that Trump announced it by tweet, yes?

As if I would need it to explain something here. It is simply used as a short name for those who oppose the withdrawal from Syria and are in positions powerful enough to start some operations to prevent it.
Yes, I know it. What is the point?

Am I your only source of information?

Of course, not. But your behavior is quite inconsistent. Once you claim I have no information, this implies you have information I don't have. And in this case, it would be reasonable to give this information. And this may be useful and interesting for me and other readers too. Maybe even for you, if it appears that I have not only this information you think I don't have, but even some more information I will give you in my reply. Discussions, if used not as an exchange of defamations and personal attacks, but as an exchange of information, is not zero-sum, but gives something to all participants. And that those who have given the most interesting information, the information nobody else was able to refute with better arguments, count as the winner of the discussion. Quite fair, they have given other people most useful information, received themselves less useful information, and being the winner is some sort of payment for this.

The grand jury disagreed. So did the judges involved. So did the prosecutor. And so do most readers of them. The indictments follow from the evidence - that's what an indictment is, in a US court.

I do not even doubt. In a country with "free felonies a day" laws, they have to. Note, you have talked about the harm. I have objected, that there was no evidence for harm in the indictment. You are now about something different - the jury and the courts care (and are obliged to care) about laws violated. Not about some real people being really harmed. That is a very big difference.

The prosecutor in this case has little or no chance of losing in court. That was not the point of those plea bargains.

There is always such a chance. But this is not the point. Getting some claims against the real target, Trump, is, of course, what all those cases are about. It is not about justice, it is about man hunting.

They do. You blow it off.
For example: pointing to your areas of ignorance when you have obviously overlooked them is informative - if you pay attention.

Nice try, but, no, this is not the information which is missed, it is only a hint about where one can get it oneself. Like in this example:

You do not, in fact, know anything about climate change, for example. That should inform your posts, cause you to seek information before delivering assessments of (say) IPCC findings, and prevent you from posting wingnut agitprop fed to you by US fascist media operations. But it doesn't.

This is a claim, not information. The information would have been quoting some of my claims about climate which is wrong, together with information what is, instead, correct, together with some link to evidence (which can be, possibly, some IPCC findings) supporting this particular claim.

You only mentioned one. I mentioned both. Whichever one you left out, along with Reagan, did much more war-starting than either Obama or Clinton. Either Clinton.

LOL. Nice try. Funny enough to leave it as it is, no necessity to comment it.

 

[iceaura]

It is simply used as a short name for those who oppose the withdrawal from Syria and are in positions powerful enough to start some operations to prevent it.

And tomorrow it will be a short name for some other bunch of people you know nothing about, and presume exist.
Handy term, for posting bullshit - the reader is just supposed to fill in their own bogey, apparently, thereby providing the plausibility and evidence for you.
In this case you lucked out with your audience - there is such a group, they are perfidious in the manner you claim, and they have been on the lefty radar in the US for a very long time now: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-adults-in-the-room-are-the-problem/ So we can fill in your claim for you.

Once you claim I have no information, this implies you have information I don't have. And in this case, it would be reasonable to give this information.

Not always. Sometimes it's just pointing to where you have made uninformed assumptions again - in which case the required information is right there in your post. Every time you use the term "deep State" in reference to the US, for example. Every time you post anything about climate change.

I do not even doubt. In a country with "free felonies a day" laws, they have to.

Irrelevant - the indictments were for serious crimes, as well as being tactical moves in the prosecution of even more serious organized whitecollar crime.
Also: They don't.
(Also, more US wingnut bullshit you suckered for)

Note, you have talked about the harm. I have objected, that there was no evidence for harm in the indictment.

Indictments. Dozens of them.
There is never "evidence of harm" in an indictment. The evidence of harm is elsewhere. You did not object on those grounds, but on the grounds that you - in your ignorance - could not see how such criminal behavior was harmful.

The information would have been quoting some of my claims about climate which is wrong, together with information what is, instead, correct, together with some link to evidence (which can be, possibly, some IPCC findings) supporting this particular claim.

Tried that. Didn't work.

LOL. Nice try. Funny enough to leave it as it is, no necessity to comment it.

Why did you leave out Bush and Reagan? You do that consistently - always comparatively minor figures like Obama or Clinton, emphasized, only occasionally the main instigators and sources of the bad stuff you deplore.
Maybe that finest kind Russian "net journalism" you claim to rely on overlooks Republican Party bad stuff in tandem with US rightwing media feeds, for some reason. They certainly seem to share a Hillary Clinton obsession.

Or maybe you are doing the editing and revision.

Either way, the ignorance cripples. Contrast with your posting on stuff actually happening in Syria, that you know something about.

 

[Schmelzer]

And tomorrow it will be a short name for some other bunch of people you know nothing about, and presume exist.
Handy term, for posting bullshit - the reader is just supposed to fill in their own bogey, apparently, thereby providing the plausibility and evidence for you.
In this case you lucked out with your audience - there is such a group, they are perfidious in the manner you claim, and they have been on the lefty radar in the US for a very long time now: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-adults-in-the-room-are-the-problem/ So we can fill in your claim for you.

Nice article, and very closely describes how I see the situation. I have not found anything to object. How the content connects with your polemics around it is beyond me, but so what.

Not always. Sometimes it's just pointing to where you have made uninformed assumptions again - in which case the required information is right there in your post. Every time you use the term "deep State" in reference to the US, for example.

No, it is not. In such a case, the choice is either to ask me to give the missing information or to give at least an alternative assumption. I simply follow the article's "call it the deep state, the swamp, or whatever you like". Your giving a link to this article was certainly a good idea, now you have a quite clear idea about the people I mean when I talk about the deep state.

Irrelevant - the indictments were for serious crimes, as well as being tactical moves in the prosecution of even more serious organized whitecollar crime.''

Why should a reasonable person care about "serious crime" in a country where simply owning illegal porn is such a very serious crime with high penalties?

The evidence of harm is elsewhere. You did not object on those grounds, but on the grounds that you - in your ignorance - could not see how such criminal behavior was harmful.

Indeed, I cannot see any harm if some foreigners participate in a discussion about US elections. Given the big role that the US plays in the world, the result is relevant for foreigners too, and so it is reasonable that they try to tell the US population what they think about this, following the absurd hypothesis that there is some free speech in the US which allows them to do this. As private persons or in an organized form of a firm or an organization does not matter. Is the US harmed if people around the world tell you that Clinton is a warmonger, and refresh your memories about the facts of what Clinton has done? The only objection is, then, the use of fake identities. Big deal, and certainly not harmful in a world where almost everybody uses pseudonyms (including you).
(The "no harm" argument is about that indictment against the Russians, and there mainly about the conspiracy part. Of course, Manafort has probably not paid all the taxes for what he gained in the dubious Ukrainian deals, so there you can reasonable claim harm.)

Tried that. Didn't work.

Indeed. Because your arguments were flawed, and, given your links, it was easy for me to show this. It seems you have understood that you should have to read your own sources too, focussing on how I could use it, but that was too much work for you. Or simply you have no source which I could not easily "misuse". So, argumentative discussion indeed did not work for you, so you switched to cheap polemics without any arguments.

Why did you leave out Bush and Reagan? You do that consistently - always comparatively minor figures like Obama or Clinton, emphasized, only occasionally the main instigators and sources of the bad stuff you deplore.

I focus on recent time. That's why I also leave out Lincoln, Wilson, and Nixon. My focus is on the time of the unipolar world order, so Reagan is simply from another time.

Then, however horrible Bush I. was in some parts (the first Iraq war, Panama, Somalia), with the US continuing the policy of Bush I. we would not be now in a new cold war. There would be no NATO in Eastern Europe, no bombing of Belgrad, no US troops in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Maybe that finest kind Russian "net journalism" you claim to rely on overlooks Republican Party bad stuff in tandem with US rightwing media feeds, for some reason. They certainly seem to share a Hillary Clinton obsession.

No. They know very well that in the tradition the Reps were even more pro-war than the Democrats, they are very aware of those "adults in the room", and were not optimistic that the US will really go out of Syria. I would not name it obsession if one prefers Trump as less evil (which is what many of the commenters share) if one, beyond this, is neutral about, say, Jeb Bush or whatever other Rep candidate vs. Hillary, considering them all to come from the same swamp, with no relevant differences for Russia even imaginable. Many were skeptical about Trump changing anything from the start too.

As long as my "ignorance" is not in contradiction with the sources you give, your claims are nothing but cheap flames. Why should I care about it?

 

[iceaura]

My focus is on the time of the unipolar world order, so Reagan is simply from another time.

You say the silliest things, from your base of near-complete ignorance of US politics.

The current US involvement in Syria, auxiliary to the Iraq invasion and the Iranian conflicts, dates to Reagan. The Iran Contra/Saddam Hussein mess, the initial US invasion of Iraq/Kuwait in '92, the damaging rejection of wise diplomacy with Russia after the USSR collapse (which led to fallout with Assad), the entire US executive policy situation as we see it now, is a product of Reagan, Bush, and W. You left out two of those three.

Meanwhile: The unipolar US world order, such as it was, dates to the aftermath of WWII. Like the other industrial powers, the USSR was nearly destroyed in WWII - it never recovered to serious cultural or economic influence, and its buildup to military threat was a product of damaging priority decisions that ended up self-destructive.

Indeed, I cannot see any harm if some foreigners participate in a discussion about US elections.

Discussion? Is that what you call such operations? Funny.
Americans can. And so they passed laws forbidding such crimes.

Why should a reasonable person care about "serious crime" in a country where simply owning illegal porn is such a very serious crime with high penalties?

Nobody asks you to care. The people afflicted by the serious crimes (American citizens) will care enough for everybody.

Your giving a link to this article was certainly a good idea, now you have a quite clear idea about the people I mean when I talk about the deep state.

Not tomorrow. You're only referring to those people today, and only by luck (I found them for you). Tomorrow it will be somebody who was supporting Clinton's State Department initiatives maybe (much different people), or people supporting the neoliberal political globalists (yet another crowd), or the people backing Mueller's investigation, - and after a few threads like that, the Venn diagram intersection of all those groups will be empty. Is empty.

You simply have no idea what - if anything - the US has by way of a "deep State". That's because the prime candidates are private capitalist corporations and their minions, not "government", and you can't see fascism. Most of your candidates have been well known shallow State folks, doing their official jobs . You don't know that, because you don't know enough about the US shallow State.

I would not name it obsession if one prefers Trump as less evil

You, and they, share the American rightwing media obsession with Hillary Clinton. That's how you arrived at that ridiculous idea of a fascist demagogue being "less evil" than a mill-run corporate Democratic rightwinger - you knew little about Trump, but more to the point you knew less than nothing (actively misinformed) about Clinton.

Then, however horrible Bush I. was in some parts (the first Iraq war, Panama, Somalia), with the US continuing the policy of Bush I. we would not be now in a new cold war. There would be no NATO in Eastern Europe, no bombing of Belgrad, no US troops in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Silly boy. Do you recall that Bush was head of the CIA for a while? That his father was in the oil business? That he was Republican during Reagan's ascension?
Bush held Presidency from '89 to '93: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations (does not include CIA operations in Afghanistan, South and Central America, etc - recall Bush was CIA)
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110222140607AAa5KDE note comments re Clinton "betrayal".
Bush was perfectly fine with expanding NATO, having the CIA do regime change, sending in US soldiers to depose despots he didn't like and protect the ones he did, and so forth. That entire "globalist" agenda you don't like? - that was Bush's foreign policy. There were US military in Iraq when Clinton took over - Bush put them there, after starting and "ending" (didn't) the '91 War, to "protect the Kurds" (who had already been gassed) - and it was Clinton who pulled at least some of them out (along with the Somalia forces, which - unlike Trump - Clinton actually withdrew, despite the opposition of the generals).
Clinton, like Obama, inherited far more war than he started. Reagan, Bush, and W, started far more than they inherited. That includes Syria. So why the curious partial list?

 

[Schmelzer]

The current US involvement in Syria, auxiliary to the Iraq invasion and the Iranian conflicts, dates to Reagan.

The point being? Reagan did not act in a unipolar world but in a bipolar one. The other pole was not a civilized, acceptable alternative, but communism, a society with much less freedom, and, moreover, with the aim to control the whole world. So, fighting it made sense, was justified and legitimate in principle, even if not in many many details (like creating Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Afghanistan and a lot of other mess).

What has been justified at that time became a horrible error once the unipolar world has been created. This should have been the starting point for changing US policy completely. It has not. The Cold War policy was continued. This is the main objection, but it is not one against Reagan, but against those who ruled during the unipolar world rule of the US.

Meanwhile: The unipolar US world order, such as it was, dates to the aftermath of WWII.

Feel free to name it whatever you like, I name the period between WWII and 1990 bipolar.

Like the other industrial powers, the USSR was nearly destroyed in WWII - it never recovered to serious cultural or economic influence, and its buildup to military threat was a product of damaging priority decisions that ended up self-destructive.

What was self-destructive was not the military, but the economic system - communism. If, say, Stalin or one of his followers would have started the economic policy of Deng Hsiao Ping, introducing a state capitalism similar to the Chinese one today, there would have been no such self-destruction.

Discussion? Is that what you call such operations? Funny. Americans can. And so they passed laws forbidding such crimes.

Repeating claims popular in a community to gain followers to sell the reached influence for advertising is, of course, not discussion. But if a free discussion is possible and legal, such behavior will have to be legal too. And this is the point.

You are, of course, correct that America can see some harm in free speech and pass laws forbidding free speech. And has essentially done this, once the behavior (even without the use of false personalities) is a serious crime in America.

Nobody asks you to care. The people afflicted by the serious crimes (American citizens) will care enough for everybody.

Fine. In fact, I don't care. Except for the harm caused by American propaganda to other countries, where this modern GULAG system is sold as one with "free speech".

Not tomorrow. You're only referring to those people today, and only by luck (I found them for you). Tomorrow it will be somebody who was supporting Clinton's State Department initiatives maybe (much different people), or people supporting the neoliberal political globalists (yet another crowd), or the people backing Mueller's investigation, - and after a few threads like that, the Venn diagram intersection of all those groups will be empty. Is empty.

Nonsense. First, look at my recent comments about Mattis being fired before I have read this article. You will find out that I liked it that he was fired. And, of course, the deep state is not only those "adults in the room" inside the Trump administration. But also all those who promoted them as "adults" in the media and so on. In fact, all these groups you list are part of the swamp. They may disagree about a lot of things, but they agree about the important things, supporting permanent war for the unipolar world. There is no point to consider the Venn diagram intersection, what matters is its union. (Or, more accurate, this is all that matters for me. More accurate information about who are the really big guy there and who plays only a role as executing the commands is of interest for other people, say, those who want to get something from them, or, alternatively, change that system. For me, as an outsider, this is not very relevant. )

You simply have no idea what - if anything - the US has by way of a "deep State". That's because the prime candidates are private capitalist corporations and their minions, not "government", ... Most of your candidates have been well known shallow State folks, doing their official jobs. You don't know that, because you don't know enough about the US shallow State.

Same point. The corporations are, of course, part of it too. I would only restrict it to big private corporations. Small companies play no essential role. But the government itself is part too.

The question to distinguish between shallow and deep state is not very interesting for me. The point of using "deep state" instead of simply "state" is that I have enough evidence to see that what the US is doing is not exactly what the shallow state is doing. If the shallow state would be the real state, many of those things done by the US would be illegal, the shallow state would fight them. Moreover, elections would be able to change these things. It would be nice for you if most of the shallow state would only do what they are obliged to do by the constitution, instead of receiving commands from some hidden instances behind. If not, this would be mainly your problem.

If many things which I attribute to the deep state (say, the support not of the "moderate rebels", which is open, but even of the IS) are, in fact, done by the shallow state, it would be an error on my side, but not change much. It would only mean that even the shallow state is much eviler than it looks like.

You, and they, share the American rightwing media obsession with Hillary Clinton.

How considering Hillary as being on equal foot with most of the other Republican candidates becomes an "obsession" is beyond me. Given the results of Trump up to now, they are far from ideal but not horrible, and not what would have followed if Clinton would have fulfilled her promises.

Silly boy. Do you recall that Bush was head of the CIA for a while? That his father was in the oil business? That he was Republican during Reagan's ascension?
Bush held Presidency from '89 to '93: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations (does not include CIA operations in Afghanistan, South and Central America, etc - recall Bush was CIA)
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110222140607AAa5KDE note comments re Clinton "betrayal".
Bush was perfectly fine with expanding NATO, having the CIA do regime change, sending in US soldiers to depose despots he didn't like and protect the ones he did, and so forth. That entire "globalist" agenda you don't like? - that was Bush's foreign policy.

Please reread the argument I have made. It has nothing to do with what you list here. It was that in a bipolar world, where the other pole is in comparison in many questions eviler, and certainly also likes to organize regime change operations (named communist revolutions) everywhere where he does not rule, doing such things is one thing, doing it as a rule of a unipolar world a different one. It is the difference between a Cold War between two superpowers, justified on the Western side by self-defense against the communist program to establish worldwide communist power, and a Cold War of one superpower against the rest of the world, justified by nothing but the aim of ruling the world.

Just to clarify, the US, in particular, the CIA, did a lot of horrible crimes during the Cold War, crimes where a justification as self-defense against the communist danger should be rejected. But there is nonetheless an essential difference between doing such things during the Cold War against communism and doing them in the unipolar world, where a justification based on self-defense is no longer even imaginable.

 

[iceaura]

Please reread the argument I have made. It has nothing to do with what you list here. It was that in a bipolar world, where the other pole is in comparison in many questions eviler, and certainly also likes to organize regime change operations (named communist revolutions) everywhere where he does not rule, doing such things is one thing, doing it as a rule of a unipolar world a different one.

Reagan to a degree, and Bush entirely, were operating in a unipolar world. From WWII until recently the US was the one superpower on this planet. Now one can argue the count is zero.
- - -

The point being? Reagan did not act in a unipolar world but in a bipolar one.

Not really - the Soviet Union never rose to more than a temporary military power and nuclear threat, from the debris of WWII.
And certainly Bush was launching his wars and stuff in a unipolar world, as much as there ever was one.

What has been justified at that time became a horrible error once the unipolar world has been created. This should have been the starting point for changing US policy completely.

Agreed. And the US almost did, in that window after WWII - the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Japan, the avoidance of conquering and coercive domination in the destroyed countries.
But the military/industrial complex needed a war.

How considering Hillary as being on equal foot with most of the other Republican candidates becomes an "obsession" is beyond me.

You have forgotten your Hillary-related posting already. Convenient.

The point of using "deep state" instead of simply "state" is that I have enough evidence to see that what the US is doing is not exactly what the shallow state is doing.

You do not. You don't even have enough information to shrug off the wingnut Hillary-hate feeds.

And so you are likewise unable to make sense of Trump's behavior in Syria - attributing it to strategy or ideological stance, "isolationism", "deep State" influence, stuff like that.

 

[Schmelzer]

Reagan to a degree, and Bush entirely, were operating in a unipolar world. From WWII until recently the US was the one superpower on this planet.

So we can here agree to disagree. Whatever, I would think that even in your opinion something changed in the world from 1985-1990, not? In this case, it does not matter how you name it, you can easily reformulate my argument in your language.

And the US almost did, in that window after WWII - the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of Japan, the avoidance of conquering and coercive domination in the destroyed countries.
But the military/industrial complex needed a war.

No. The rebuilding of Germany and Japan had a clear aim - preparation to fight the Soviet Union.

You have forgotten your Hillary-related posting already. Convenient.

Not forgotten. You made a big deal out of essentially nothing. It became important here because of your endless repetitions. What impressed me in the videos, and made me think she is not only a warmonger but also a lunatic was increased by a strange medical condition of her eyes, which I have found out later myself.

 

[iceaura]

Whatever, I would think that even in your opinion something changed in the world from 1985-1990, not?

China found its footing. The USSR lost its footing. Islamic Jihad found its footing. Japanese banking lost its footing. And the "sovereign wealth fund" became visible - just sort of grew on people.

And the fascist movement in the US completed its takeover of the Republican Party.

No. The rebuilding of Germany and Japan had a clear aim - preparation to fight the Soviet Union.

The Germans and Japanese rebuilt their own countries, and without military.
Meanwhile, the USSR was a ruined country barely able to feed itself, without modern infrastructure, whose blasted economy had just seen the best of a generation killed and crippled in war.

It became important here because of your endless repetitions.

It remains obvious and indicative here because you never learned, and never stopped.
And it biases your take on Syria to this day.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Germans and Japanese rebuilt their own countries, and without military.

The Cold War was in a large part ideological, And a successful economic development with a capitalist economy was something that mattered. And those in power in the US at that time were more competent about all this than those in power today.

It remains obvious and indicative here because you never learned, and never stopped.

The only thing made obvious is that you decided that endless repetitions of the same primitive attacks is optimal for you.