Jon Stewart Points Out That Obama Was Following An Agreement Bush Signed When He Withdrew From Iraq (Which GOP Are Claiming Is The Reason For The Creation Of ISIS)
This is essentially a rant about foreign policy. Being from both sides of the world I have the unique perspective of seeing both sides as human while willing within the cultures (in war the first thing people do is dehumanize each other). I've also put alot of thought into this with posts going back 2-3 years. It's kinda frustrating watching traitors attack US citizens with such impunity (courtesy our Justice Department) so this post is irritated in tone and goes on for a while. Only for people interested in foreign policy.
America in the Middle East - Learning Curves Are for Pussies - A CIA report finds that America's arming of rebels and insurgents in the Middle East never works out well for the U.S. (1:00)
Before we begin, watch this short video of Dick Cheney explaining why invading Iraq was a bad idea in 1994 (it provides context for the most obvious GOP cons);
Mother Jones: Cheney Warns of Iraq Quagmire ... in 1994!!!!
Here is leaves out the fact that John McCain took it upon himself to campaign relentlessness to get some aid for Syrian rebels. The group he chose through help through his Arab allies was ISIS, i.e. we have a direct funding connection from the GOP to ISIS. IN other words, back when I was tactfully arguing that we need to help the moderate rebels... John McCain (traitor Supreme) went out of his way to fund the extremists (probably so would kill as many people as possible... they don'y think long term, i.e. when GOP leaders seem to ponder on what to do thier question always seems to be "how many people can I hurt and/or kill today").
Why would "US Lawmakers" avoid a clear moderate group and fund the extremists instead? Sounds like strategy of treason to me (one with precedent)... and since we can't indict the GOP for treason without a declared war... I'm betting the GOP will never declare war on thier allies, ISIS.
John McCain will probably argue that these are mistakes in judgement. But so many mistakes? Not to mention the ton of "mistakes" on Iraq. Either John McCain is senile or a traitor. If he continues to argue that these are mistakes then these are the only possible explanations for his actions;
Those people were identified years ago when this problem was 2 pr 3 years old. Most people decided to go anti-war. As I explained back then, the longer we wait the more extremist fighters will get so we should fund the moderates & even put in a no fly zone to help them (not to mention the fact that this time, unlike Iraq, there was actual proof of WMD and like Saddam with the Kurds... had actually been used against it's population). The media took care of the no fly zone idea with their incompetence and John McCain took care of the moderate rebel problem by funding the extremists as per traditional CIA policy (doesn't seem like an accident to me).
Paul Ryan is repeating the new GOP party line which they seem to have gotten from one of my old blog posts on the matter, listed here:
Jon Stewart summarizes this situation;
We are taking advice from people on TV with a proven record of being wrong so CONSISTENTLY that they have to be up to something (nothing even mentioning the Iraq War shenanigans).
List of GOP lies Iraq war and the cover-up in it's aftermath.
The Iraq War Cover-Up
Yes. We have armed rebels in the past... but it's not whether we have done something in the past but in what context we did it that matters.
If we swim off the coast of Australia and encounter sharks and expect the same thing when swimming in the dead sea then the problem here is context, i.e. one area is dangerous and the other isn't.
Our first "adventure" in "helping" people was done secretly under Ronald Reagan after he traid and failed to get popular support for his idea of arming death squads to kill innocent people.
Foreign Policy Guidelines For Dealing With Genocide & Mass Murder:
I think a good rule of thumb would be, would we like what we do if it was done to us.
Would we have liked another country funding death squads in our country? The answer is no. So we shouldn't do it to others. Ref: Ronald Reagans' Death Squads
We we have liked if another government came in, overthrew our democracy and installed a dictatorship with it's secrete police? The answer is no. So we shouldn't do it to others;
If we had a dictator government killing us in the streets and using planes and helicopters against us... would we have liked help from other countries? The answer is yes. Thus we should have helped the Syrians... and this provides a moral - and human - outline for how to deal with genocide in the future.
The French supported us when we fought the British for independence so there is historical precedent for this.
This following preacher explains the Golden Rule as told by Jesus in the Gospels....
Why did we go into another country, destroy their democracy and install a violent dictatorship in 10952 in Iran? Oil. Crimes for oil is apparently "National Security" while it's effects are the opposite.
Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup
Notice that the techniques the CIA used to destabilize Iranian democracy is the same strategy being used to destabilize the United States by the GOP (I think it's safe to say that the CIA & GOP constitute primary enemies of the United States).
Now lets go into the topic of this video.
Barack Obama Commissions A Study From The CIA ;
Media does it's pretend reporting on the topic;
A nice in depth analysis that - literally - manages to leave out everything that is normal in human relations and politics. For example morality and hypocrisy as outline above.
So the CIA found that arming rebels of any sort anywhere and at anytime doesn't work;
Daily Show comes up with a quaint analogy, once again leaving out context. Funny but inaccurate... and since the Daily Show is one of the last news sources left in America (Good job CIA!), they need to get it right.
Now lets take a look at the one exception the CIA found when arming rebels, i.e. thier one success;
True. The people they armed later became the Taliban and even Al Qaeda. However we need to separate the first act from the second because there is a clear break followed by a predictable chain of events for anyone who knows anything about history. Given the CIA's track record of destabilizing other countries and our own, there is no reason to believe this was an accident, unless proven otherwise.
Unlike the death squads Ronald Reagan's CIA funded, these rebels were defending thier home. Then, as you see in the movie above, the Soviets left and the funding ended. No schools were built... i.e. no economic environment at all. Just a broken country into which the CIA entered and clearly started fanning Muslim extremists (religious fundamentalism makes for dedicated fighters) and possibly for heroin, which it is known to have smuggled in Vietnam.
So we have a country that is broken, in poverty and violent... the solution was apparently to completely withdraw from it cause the Soviets had left, leaving a huge refugee problem on Pakistan, not to mention a whole other country of people within it's borders (not including the tribal - Native American like - regions in it's North West which was intermingling with similar tribes on both sides of the "border"/mountainous terrain). So over time the area has social and economic breakdown which affects society according to predictable patterns. It's a basic formula good people can use.
Civil Unrest Scale:
Next, Jon Stewart talks about Iraq which was intentionally destabilized by Dick Cheney and his forces. When I say "intentionally destabilized" I mean that literally. Not only did they remove Saddam they removed every administrative person within the entire administration leaving nobody with any experience in how to govern a country of any sort, much less one seeking to modernize. One well known result of that intentional destabilization was having the army people we kicked out rather than reintegrating into a new army, turned into ISIS and returned to reclaim it's territory;
One thing about intentionally destabilizing a region using our army is that the region is broken... which is a testament to the power of our army. What we fail to realize is, is that we keep trying to define the Iraq problem as an accidental one. If you take into account all the evidence and overrule that solution as unlikely and/or improbable you are left with the fact that Iraq was invaded intentionally for oil. It was destabilized intentionally. As per those mission parameters our army is the best in the world. What I'm arguing is, is that we shouldn't be doing that in the first place and the only way to stop it is to acknowledge what we did and then hold the people accountable by putting them in prison.
Jeb Bush Faces Down America
lol! Rick Santorum is the guy who said;
Some history, kinda;
Before going on, notice that the context is missing to arming Saddam Hussein to fight Iran before Saddam Hussein used those weapons against his own people (the Kurds) and to invade Kuwait... was that this whole mess was started by the CIA destabilizing the Iranian government to install a dictator in 1952 who oppressed his people with Nazi like secret services. We don't have the moral high ground in this argument. Simple arming someone doens't make us the nice guy. We have the arm people for the right reasons. If the CIA would take the moral high ground in international situations (lol! Never gonna happen)- also determining our involvement and thus entanglement in the region - then maybe they wouldn't do what normal people would consider to be bad, like destabilize governments and install dictators. Look at it this way, if some government destabilized American government and installed a dictator ... how would you feel? What if it happened 65 years ago and that country had, since then, started a war with you by arming your neighbor as well? People seem to make decisions out of context. So taking the moral high ground, as per the art of war, would be a good idea for foreign policy as a rule for the future.
ISIS was an ADDITIONAL creation to the middle east problem. Removing Saddam would be a bad idea. Cheney knew this but was overpowered by the idea of oil profits at the taxpayers expense (like our 1953 coup of Iran). Everything the "Neo Cons" said turned out to be wrong and rather than have an investigation into crimes we decided that they all just got everything wrong for once, despite having video evidence to the contrary (which even Rand Paul slammed Cheney on) ... and now we ask thier opinions on important issues and think they hold weight. I think I've accurately described out current political situation.
Now, Jon Stewart points out that Iran & the US have become natural allies in dealing with ISIS. No exchange of arms are taking place (nor should there be any). We are working on a nuclear treaty for the purposes of peace (which go against GOP party policies of war - as per thier actions... how do they keep everything secret? Loyalty Oaths! Like the Communists!)
Some cooperation never hurt anyone. The CIA caused the coup of a democracy in Iran in 1953... so the CIA and the GOP are the biggest threat to peace in the region, thus if we run into any big problems, it should be possible to trace the source directly to Traitor Inc. (GOP & CIA). i.e.;
Moment Of Zen;