Middle East and North Africa 18

[The Once and Future King]

No, they did not occupied them. But that's because they are both cowards unable to bear political costs of American lives lost, not because of being dovish. Obama bombed Libya and only unlikely alliance of Tea Party and liberal doves prevented him doing the same in Libya. And to even mention Clinton is laughable. He militarily intervened in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq. Hell, when Bush ran against Gore he said he won't wage unnecessary wars and won't engage in nation building. Such was the image of Clinton administration in late 90ties. Of course those wars resulted in far less american casualties, than Iraq and Afghanistan, so they are largely forgotten. Of course political consequences were significant (interventions of Yugoslavia resulting in significant loss of American support in Eastern Europe and that in Iraq of support among Arabs).

You said libya twice you meant syria. Other than that well stated

[Shryke]

No, they did not occupied them. But that's because they are both cowards unable to bear political costs of American lives lost, not because of being dovish. Obama bombed Libya and only unlikely alliance of Tea Party and liberal doves prevented him doing the same in Syria. And to even mention Clinton is laughable. He militarily intervened in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq. Hell, when Bush ran against Gore he said he won't wage unnecessary wars and won't engage in nation building. Such was the image of Clinton administration in late 90ties. Of course those wars resulted in far less american casualties, than Iraq and Afghanistan, so they are largely forgotten. Of course political consequences were significant (interventions of Yugoslavia resulting in significant loss of American support in Eastern Europe and that in Iraq of support among Arabs).

Yes, so you have successfully noted that while Clinton and Obama intervened in several conflicts, neither started decades long wars, one for absolutely no reason, that killed ridiculous numbers of people.

Yes, this would seem to constitute a distinct difference in foreign policy, I agree.

Though I'm really curious what you think the definition of "cowardice" is, given this post. Cause man, it is not the one from the english language.

[The King in Black]

people lets not have any sort of delusion about American Foreign policy

[Dicer]

Why stop at Clinton? Did the Cold War mean we weren't interventionists? Of course not, so let's put the blame where it truly belongs. At the feet of Truman and every single President/Congress since. Cuz 'Murika! Fuck Yeah!

To quote Noam Chomsky:

"If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged"

So how is the alleged rift between Netanyahu and Obama going for the Palestinians?

The United States will not take the floor at the main U.N. human rights forum on Monday during the annual debate on violations committed in the Palestinian territories, as part of a previous agreement not to speak.

The European Union, however, reiterated "the urgency of renewed, structured and substantial efforts towards peace".

"The U.S. delegation will not be speaking about Palestine today," a U.S. spokesman in Geneva told Reuters in response to a query as the debate began.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0MJ0OL20150323?irpc=932

Nothing new there.

Israel was spying on US talks with Iran

http://gawker.com/report-israel-spied-on-us-talks-with-iran-1693264148

The Wall Street Journal reports that White House officials learned last year that Israel was spying on closed-door talks with Iran, which wouldn't have been a problem but for the fact that the Israelis shared what they'd learned with lawmakers.

"It is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other," a senior US official briefed on the matter told the Journal. "It is another thing for Israel to steal US secrets and play them back to US legislators to undermine US diplomacy."

Priorities. Its one things to slaughter Palestinian children. That's ok. Its another thing entirely to side with the Republicans. Now the Democrats are pissed!

[Dicer]

Yes, so you have successfully noted that while Clinton and Obama intervened in several conflicts, neither started decades long wars, one for absolutely no reason, that killed ridiculous numbers of people.

Obama's drone wars are particularly nasty.

In January 2009, when Obama came to power, the drone programme existed only for Pakistan and had seen 44 strikes in five years. With Obama in office it expanded to Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia with more than 250 strikes. Since April there have been 14 strikes in Yemen alone.

Civilian casualties are common. Obama's first strike in Yemen killed two families who were neighbours of the target. One in Pakistan missed and blew up a respected tribal leader and a peace delegation. He has deliberately killed American citizens, including the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in September last year, and accidentally killed others, such as Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

There may not be a cost to the American soldier, but civilians in other countries are still being killed.

The Guardian reports that, “Since 2004, between 2,464 and 3,145 people are reported to have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan, of whom up to 828 were civilians (535 under Obama) and 175 children … These killings are, in reality, summary executions and widely regarded as potential war crimes by international lawyers – including the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100161507/barack-obamas-war-on-terror-is-nastier-and-less-ethical-than-george-w-bushs/

A report has found that the Middle east has been very profitable for American defense companies:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/09/us-weapons-exporters-lead-world-war-profiteering

New study finds booming business driven by 'an escalation of regional tensions in the Middle East and Asia Pacific'

U.S. weapons exporters lead the world in profits from the booming military arms and equipment business, driven by rising tensions and conflict around the world, according to a new report from London-based analysts.

The annual study by IHS Inc.—which looks at military markets in 65 nations, excluding small arms, munitions, and surveillance programs—finds that the United States is behind one-third of all equipment and weapons exports world-wide.

This is no small amount: in 2014, global "defense" trade surpassed $64.4 billion, the report finds.

The U.S., further, is the top profiteer from rising conflict across the Middle East, accounting for $8.4 billion in exports to this region in 2014, compared to $6 billion the previous year.

Meanwhile, U.S. allies in the expanding war against ISIS are boosting their weapons imports significantly.

"The Middle East is the biggest regional market and there are $110 billion in opportunities in coming decade."

The defense contractors must be licking their chops in anticipation of all the wars in the middle east. And I think Congress has approved weapons being send to Ukraine as well. Lots of business in the next decade.

[Mr Fixit]

You know, if you ignore the three parliamentary elections preceding that declaration of independence all resulting with a clear majority to parties actively campaigning for independence...

And what does that have to do with:

1. Illegally bombing a country and occupying a part of it (a point I raised in response to the claim that Clinton didn't occupy countries)

Declaring independence without any kind of process leading up to it. With that kind of logic, would Crimea, legally speaking, be able to declare it too if pro-Russian parties win enough regular elections on an independence platform?

You also failed to address my other point, that Kosovo gained independence without referendum OR negotiated settlement. At least some kind of process would be better than doing it unilaterally and ending up where we are today, i.e. with a failed state no one knows what to do with.

[The Iceman of the North]

And what does that have to do with:

1. Illegally bombing a country and occupying a part of it (a point I raised in response to the claim that Clinton didn't occupy countries)

Declaring independence without any kind of process leading up to it. With that kind of logic, would Crimea, legally speaking, be able to declare it too if pro-Russian parties win enough regular elections on an independence platform?

You also failed to address my other point, that Kosovo gained independence without referendum OR negotiated settlement. At least some kind of process would be better than doing it unilaterally and ending up where we are today, i.e. with a failed state no one knows what to do with.

1. This was more of a European NATO operation, than a US operation, so blaming it on Clinton is a bit far fetched.

2. In principle yes, but that's not what happened.

As for declaring independence without a referendum, as long as repeated elections have shown a clear preference for independence, I don't see the need for a referendum. Regarding negotiated settlement, that's preferable, but when the opposite side refuses to negotiate at all, what's the point?

[Shryke]

So how is the alleged rift between Netanyahu and Obama going for the Palestinians?

Alleged? Seriously?

The two can't stand each other. Bibi basically actively campaigned against Obama.

That don't mean overall US feelings on Israel are changing any faster though. Too much popular support behind them to give any president much wiggle room.

Though Obama is basically thumbing his nose at Bibi and the people aligned with him in the US by continuing the Iran talks.

Obama's drone wars are particularly nasty.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

There may not be a cost to the American soldier, but civilians in other countries are still being killed.

Still way less.

The fallout of the Iraq War alone is staggering in scope to a degree the drone program never has been.

[The Once and Future King]

Alleged? Seriously?

The two can't stand each other. Bibi basically actively campaigned against Obama.

That don't mean overall US feelings on Israel are changing any faster though. Too much popular support behind them to give any president much wiggle room.

Though Obama is basically thumbing his nose at Bibi and the people aligned with him in the US by continuing the Iran talks.

Still way less.

The fallout of the Iraq War alone is staggering in scope to a degree the drone program never has been.

You must mean Obama openly campaigned against Bibi. Right?

[Shryke]

You must mean Obama openly campaigned against Bibi. Right?

Nope. Bibi basically openly supported Romney and criticized Obama for not sucking Israeli's nation-cock hard enough.

[The Once and Future King]

Nope. Bibi basically openly supported Romney and criticized Obama for not sucking Israeli's nation-cock hard enough.

Bibi said kind things about Romney.

Obama sent his people to israel to defeat Bibi. He spoke publicly against him, and he sent tax dollars to groups to defeat him( contrary to the constitution, currently under bipartisan investigation)

and now he is scuttling the long standing American policy in the region because his feelings are hurt.

Obama is a clown in foreign affairs. He was hired for his domestic promises, which amounted to a somewhat steady economy (credit where its due) and a horribly written health act.

On the international stage, he has been pathetically outplayed by Russia, ignored by Europe, and a buffoon in the middle east.

[Mr Fixit]

1. This was more of a European NATO operation, than a US operation, so blaming it on Clinton is a bit far fetched.

2. In principle yes, but that's not what happened.

As for declaring independence without a referendum, as long as repeated elections have shown a clear preference for independence, I don't see the need for a referendum. Regarding negotiated settlement, that's preferable, but when the opposite side refuses to negotiate at all, what's the point?

Clinton and Blair were the driving forces behind the bombing campaign, that much is public knowledge. I'm not sure why you insist on splitting hairs here. In any case, my point that the Clinton administration did engage in some nice invading/occupying still stands. And as another poster pointed out, this was hardly a rarity during the Clinton years. No need to get stuck here, as my initial argument dealt with what I perceive as a lack of meaningful difference in US foreign policy regardless of the party the president belongs to.

As for the other point, I'm not sure what you mean by 'the opposite side refused to negotiate' as that is very far from the truth, whether we're talking about the period preceding the war in 1999 or the unilateral declaration of independence in 2008.

[Shryke]

Bibi said kind things about Romney.

Obama sent his people to israel to defeat Bibi. He spoke publicly against him, and he sent tax dollars to groups to defeat him( contrary to the constitution, currently under bipartisan investigation)

and now he is scuttling the long standing American policy in the region because his feelings are hurt.

Uh, the Israeli-US relationship is being strained because Bibi has continually snubbed the Obama Administration and because support for Israel in the US is finally, if very slowly, turning around towards something semi-rational that actually takes into account Israeli actions. And hey, we just saw more of this shit like, today, with passing of Israeli-gathered intelligence directly to those opposing Obama in the legislature.

The rest of this is just nonsense and exaggeration. Bibi's support of the Romney campaign is well documented and the charges against Obama are not what you state they are, nor are the actual accusations at all proven yet.

Obama is a clown in foreign affairs. He was hired for his domestic promises, which amounted to a somewhat steady economy (credit where its due) and a horribly written health act.

On the international stage, he has been pathetically outplayed by Russia, ignored by Europe, and a buffoon in the middle east.

Hehehe, sure bro.

[Dicer]

Torture of prisoners (Who have not been charged with any crime) continues in Guantánamo Bay:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/24/hunger-striking-guantanamo-detainee-life-endless-horror-movie/

Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, a Yemeni national who has been detained at the American prison facility at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, weighs only 98 pounds. Never charged with a crime, al-Alwi, now 35 years old, is one of many detainees at the camp who have gone on a prolonged hunger strike.

Since commencing his strike in February 2013, al-Alwi alleges that he has been subjected to escalating physical and psychological abuse from guards, as well as increasingly brutal force-feeding procedures administered by medical personnel at the camp. Human rights organizations have described the force-feeding procedure employed at Guantánamo as torture, and the U.S. government has fought to keep video footage of the force-feeding of al-Alwi and other hunger-striking detainees from public view.

Al-Alwi, who has described his strike as “a form of peaceful protest against injustice,” has said that he will not resume eating until there is some sort of legal resolution to his case. Prison officials have responded to his hunger strike by placing him in solitary confinement, denying him access to prescribed medical items and subjecting him to extreme temperatures in his cell.

In his petition, al-Alwi describes his life in Guantánamo as “an endless horror story.”

A 2006 report by Amnesty International found that cash bounties offered for turning over “terrorists” to U.S. forces had effectively created a lucrative cash market for capturing young Arab men in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Fliers distributed by the U.S. government in the region offered “millions of dollars” in exchange for turning over purported Al-Qaeda and Taliban members, promising those who were able to render suspects to American custody “enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life.”

Its bad for business if the Iran nuclear deal works. No wonder congress has been trying to sabotage it.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/20/asked-iran-deal-potentially-slowing-military-sales-lockheed-martin-ceo-says-volatility-brings-growth/

Could a deal to normalize Western relations with Iran and set limits on Iran’s development of nuclear technology lead to a more peaceful and less-weaponized Middle East?

That’s what supporters of the Iran negotiations certainly hope to achieve. But the prospect of stability has at least one financial analyst concerned about its impact on one of the world’s biggest defense contractors.

The possibility of an Iran nuclear deal depressing weapons sales was raised by Myles Walton, an analyst from Germany’s Deutsche Bank, during a Lockheed earnings call this past January 27. Walton asked Marillyn Hewson, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, if an Iran agreement could “impede what you see as progress in foreign military sales.” Hewson replied that “that really isn’t coming up,” but stressed that “volatility all around the region” should continue to bring in new business. According to Hewson, “A lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of things that are happening” in both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region means both are “growth areas” for Lockheed Martin.

Mondoweiss points out the duplicity of liberal zionists trying to explain away Israeli racism

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/zionist-rudoren-explain

[Horza]

Houthis poised to take Aden, Saudi and Egypt scrambling to Hadi's rescue.

(up until now, this had been a protracted crisis, this looks like the beginnings of civil war)

[The Once and Future King]

Houthis poised to take Aden, Saudi and Egypt scrambling to Hadi's rescue.

(up until now, this had been a protracted crisis, this looks like the beginnings of civil war)

Do you think the Saudis stop it?

[Clueless Northman]

More precisely: Do the Saudis have the military ability and competence to stop this?

It's quite obvious they'd love to. But that's no mere Shia Bahraini unarmed rabble this time.

[The Once and Future King]

More precisely: Do the Saudis have the military ability and competence to stop this?

It's quite obvious they'd love to. But that's no mere Shia Bahraini unarmed rabble this time.

correct. I meant abiltity not desire.

[jarl the climber]

More precisely: Do the Saudis have the military ability and competence to stop this?

It's quite obvious they'd love to. But that's no mere Shia Bahraini unarmed rabble this time.

It seems like Egypt and the Saudis would have the air power to cause problems for the Houthis. The Sauids did intervene in Yemen against the Houthis a few years back. Egypt did interevene militarily in Yemen back in the 50's or 60's quite extensively I beleive. It was before my time so I really don't understand the history or if there would be any will in Egyot at this time to to get involved. If they don't intervene there pretty much opening the door for ISIS and Al Queda.

[Horza]

Do you think the Saudis stop it?

It seems like Egypt and the Saudis would have the air power to cause problems for the Houthis. The Sauids did intervene in Yemen against the Houthis a few years back. Egypt did interevene militarily in Yemen back in the 50's or 60's quite extensively I beleive. It was before my time so I really don't understand the history or if there would be any will in Egyot at this time to to get involved. If they don't intervene there pretty much opening the door for ISIS and Al Queda.

If they do intervene, we're definitely talking civil war, which will suit AQAP and ISIS fine. The only non-jihadi-friendly outcome is a political deal between the Houthis, Hadi and Saleh (who many finger as the mastermind behind the Houthi power siezure). Yemen is not a place you want to start deploying troops to.