International thread 2

[sologdin]

the EU has 1.8M troops under arms and the third largest nuclear force?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

31 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the EU has 1.8M troops under arms and the third largest nuclear force?

Nuclear weapons really are the great equalizer.  Perhaps Frank Herbert’s “Great  Convention” was not a horrible idea after all?

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 5/8/2019 at 2:49 PM, Spockydog said:

Failed Venezuela coup was fake news — designed to fool people in two nations

 

These types of stunts will probably continue to happen as the drums of war are beat. and many media Outlets in the US will quickly eat it up and propagate it without care for accuracy. 

[Zorral]

16 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

These types of stunts will probably continue to happen as the drums of war are beat. and many media Outlets in the US will quickly eat it up and propagate it without care for accuracy. 

I said so while it supposedly was happening ....  10,000 Cuban military presence! But forget the Russians and the others who are, you know, actually present, because stoopid media of every kind DID NOT FACT CHECK.

Quote

 

The whole thing was a fraud, staged at the instigation of Washington in hopes that the Venezuelan people andrank-and-file troops would fall for the trick and think an actual coup was underway.

We also know, from an excellent May 2 report by Michael Fox in the Nation, that the U.S. mainstream media and its reporters in country were promoting that dangerous fraud.

 

 

[Spockydog]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

China looking to ban endocrine disruptor BTS.

I'm glad someone's banning them. Fucking dreadful stuff.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 5/12/2019 at 10:02 AM, Triskele said:

China looking to ban endocrine disruptor BTS.

That almost felt like a Rick Roll. Only better because it's not a fake out.

US media on the left and right (and even some of the populist "democratic socialist" US left media are all in for dog piling on Venezuela. There are few people in the US media landscape truly willing to look at Venezuela objectively.

There's not much doubt Venezuela is a shit show. But apportioning blame correctly seems to be the challenge, with not many people wanting to accept that external forces have played any significant role.

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

On May 8, 2019 at 4:49 PM, Spockydog said:

Failed Venezuela coup was fake news — designed to fool people in two nations

 

So fucking predictable. As I said it was Bolton wagging the dog. If that pos is anywhere near involved in an issue, any sane person should be opposed.

[The guy from the Vale]

Which is why the current developments involving Iran are so scary. Bolton seems hell-bent on finishing the Job he started under GWB - because Nation-Building and the Export of Democracy (hah! Iran is probably the second most democratic mid-eastern power after Israel, at least more so than the Saudis or, sadly by now, Turkey) worked out so well last time around. These neocons should be kept far away from power.

[Rippounet]

33 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

Which is why the current developments involving Iran are so scary. Bolton seems hell-bent on finishing the Job he started under GWB - because Nation-Building and the Export of Democracy (hah! Iran is probably the second most democratic mid-eastern power after Israel, at least more so than the Saudis or, sadly by now, Turkey) worked out so well last time around. These neocons should be kept far away from power.

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

[lacuna]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

That's just the polish on the turd that is massive oil/infrastructure contracts after "mission accomplished".

Or maybe I'm cynical.

[The guy from the Vale]

Of course not. But that's how it was sold to the American public last time around.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Is it about nation-building and exporting democracy though?

It definitely isn't, but for PR purposes it definitely is.

[Varysblackfyre321]

Damn brave woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/12/chelsea-manning-jail-subpoena-julian-assange

Also:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/venezuela-opposition-guaido-military-support-1423619%3famp=1

Rubio’s attempt to frame what the US as doing as merely defense is laughable. It’s the same type of “defense” every empire engages when it wants  practice imperialism. 

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It definitely isn't, but for PR purposes it definitely is.

Honestly, I’d have more respect for these war-hawks if they dropped the whole “we care about human rights and Democracy” stick. If you’re going to be evil and do evil stuff, at least don’t pretend to be only doing it because you’re a bleeding humanitarian. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Triskele said:

One curious thing about Trump so far is that for all his bluster at least so far he's avoided starting a new Iraq or a new Afghanistan.  And supposedly this is a strong part of his base support in that the US military largely comes from rural communities who were tired of the drag on their communities from those wars.

So if Trump started something with Iran, something that sounds quite insane and disastrous, does everyone fall in line behind the authoritarian leader, or is this a thing that could screw him with that key group of supporters?  

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq, both geographically and population-wise.  

And on this note, cue Flight of the Valkyries, the Middle East needs a hot beef injection of freedom:

Quote

Washington (CNN)Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented a military plan at a meeting of top national security officials last week that would send as many as 120,000 US troops to the Middle East in the event that Iran strikes American forces in the region or speeds up its development of nuclear weapons, The New York Times reported Monday.

The Times said the plan, which does not call for a land invasion of Iran, was ordered in part by national security adviser John Bolton.

 

Citing administration officials, the Times said it was unknown whether President Donald Trump had been briefed on the plan, including the number of troops. The Times said the meeting occurred days after the Trump administration cited "specific and credible" intelligence last week that suggested Iranian forces and proxies were targeting US forces in Syria, Iraq and at sea.

 

Trump denied the report on Tuesday, dismissing it as "fake news."

"Now would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that," he told reporters at the White House. "Hopefully, we're not going to have to plan for that, and if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops than that.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/us-troops-middle-east-iran/index.html

[DireWolfSpirit]

With the massive recent oil discoveries in Guyanese territory one can only wonder how long it will be before the neocons go to work on destabilizing that poor tiny country. Their greed (the neocons) knows no bounds.

[Werthead]

Surprisingly rapid escalation in rhetoric between the USA and Iran in the last few days. The USA has accused Iranian forces in Iraq of placing missile batteries close to US military outposts, something denied not just by the Iranians but also the USA's own Iraqi allies and other NATO forces in the region (including the Brits). Then at the weekend, oil tankers off the coast of the UAE were apparently damaged by small explosive charges; these blasted small holes in the hulls but otherwise did no significant damage. Saudi Araba, the UAE and the US have blamed Iran, although the evidence seems dubious.

The US Secretary of State has flown to Europe and Russia, apparently to drum up support for increased measures against Iran and Russian guarantees of not interfering, but failed on both counts. Non-essential US civilian staff in Iraq have now been ordered to leave the country.

Allegedly, military plans to deploy 120,000 US troops to Iraq have been drawn up, which Trump denied by, er, saying he would send "a hell of a lot more."

This may be North Korea-style tough talk to try to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it feels like a very rapid and dangerous escalation without much in a way of a genuine reason for it. What is the US doing here?

[Maithanet]

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This may be North Korea-style tough talk to try to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it feels like a very rapid and dangerous escalation without much in a way of a genuine reason for it. What is the US doing here?

Trump lacks the attention span and knowledge to really keep Bolton and the warmongers in check, in spite of being generally opposed to military adventures like this.  So we have Bolton doing all he can to precipitate a crisis that will leave Trump with no choice but to get involved militarily.  This is that strategy in action.  The question is whether things go to hell fast enough that a war is ignited or if Trump loses patience with Bolton and fires him. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This may be North Korea-style tough talk to try to bring Iran to the negotiating table, but it feels like a very rapid and dangerous escalation without much in a way of a genuine reason for it. What is the US doing here?

Maith is largely correct, but we also cannot forget about the most obvious of things:

 

[Werthead]

Fair play, but what is the endgame? Iran is a huge country, over three times the size of Iraq with more than twice the population. It has more varied and challenging terrain and the country hasn't been militarily starved into the ground by decades of sanctions. Cracking Iran is a far, far more difficult task than Iraq. You'd need, conservatively, half a million US troops on the ground before you could even seriously think about conquering Iran.

Bombing it back into the stone age, sure. But to what end? That doesn't guarantee regime change and may trigger reprisal missile strikes on Israel and Saudi Arabia, US bases in the region, and a ground incursion into Iraq as a possible prelude to an attack on Saudi Arabia. Iran would also close the Straits of Hormuz, spiking global oil prices, and could mount amphibious operations and missile strikes on the UAE.

In any major, long-term conflict, the US and its allies would of course prevail but the cost in money and lives would be astronomical, and further destabilise the region for decades to come.

Not to mention, what happens tomorrow if Russian forces start arriving in Iran as "advisors" to help out the Iranian security forces (they already reportedly have some at Iran's nuclear power stations)? Does the US upset that apple cart as well?

I can't see any coherent political or military strategy at work here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

what is the endgame?

I can't see any coherent political or military strategy at work here.

There is none. The cold truth is that there are a lot of competing influential forces surrounding a totally incompetent leader who can’t keep a thought straight for more than a minute or two, made all the worse because said leader is the most dangerous kind of idiot, one who thinks he’s brilliant.