< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 347 OF 347 ·
|Jun-09-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <diceman: <Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> supports terror, but only when it comes giftwrapped in the Stars and Stripes.
He has standards.>
Which flag do you like your terror wrapped in Mort?>
While you have standards (only American Terrorism is OK), I have principles (terrorism is never okay).
|Jun-09-17|| ||diceman: <Colonel Mortimer: <diceman: <Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> supports terror, but only when it comes giftwrapped in the Stars and Stripes. He has standards.>|
Which flag do you like your terror wrapped in Mort?>
While you have standards (only American Terrorism is OK), I have principles (terrorism is never okay).>
Where did you get that one Mort?
Mort and Noam, saving the oppressed and dead, with “principle” and vibrating vocal chords.
Maybe you want to get a guitar, and throw in a few verses of, “Give Peace a Chance?”
|Jun-09-17|| ||diceman: <twinlark: <diceman>|
<Then my guess is, all the atrocities, oppression, tyranny, and the hundreds of thousands “magically” dead. Will be filed under “happenstance!”>
So you're saying "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it!"?>
Well I was actually saying war/atrocity happened long before the US was
around, and will be here long after it is gone.
That being said, someone had to free the slaves in our civil war,
someone had to stop Hitler/Japan.
Pearl Harbor showed pretending you can create peace by standing down is laughable.
<So you're saying "it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it!"?>
Maybe a better question is:
Why are the folks in Pol Pot's killing fields better off vs the
folks in South Korea?
|Jun-09-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> <Why are the folks in Pol Pot's killing fields better off vs the folks in South Korea?>|
The Americans gave Pol Pot diplomatic protection at the UN, so he can't have been that bad a leader?
But before Pol Pot, Cambodia was being carpet bombed by the US. "Everything that flies on anything that moves" was Kissinger's War Crimes directive.
I guess Nixon had his defence counsel lined up in case the American peoples found out (which they later did when the 'Pentagon Papers' were leaked) - it would have been the <diceman> defence "This violent world made me drop all those bombs on civilians, honest miss"
|Jun-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> <Why are the folks in Pol Pot's killing fields better off vs the folks in South Korea?>|
The Americans gave Pol Pot diplomatic protection at the UN, so he can't have been that bad a leader?>
<diceman> does not know that the US tried to protect Pol Pot against the Vietnamese who brought him down, and the subsequent Cambodian government that the Vietnamese ushered into power; because at that time the Vietnamese were seen as 'not friendly' by the US government.
One of the triumphs of the MSM. Pol Pot was demonized by the MSM as the instigator of 'the killing fields' and the murderer of millions of Cambodians, yet at the same time said MSM was silent about US protecting him.
Lie, lie until you die is the MSM's policy when dishing out politically laden news.
<diceman> If I may say so, your MSM lies when it comes to politically loaded news, have been doing so for more than a hundred years, and will keep on doing so perhaps for a hundred years or more. You just have to read news from other sides of the stadium in order to balance your perspective.
|Jun-10-17|| ||diceman: <Colonel Mortimer:
The Americans gave Pol Pot diplomatic protection at the UN, so he can't have been that bad a leader?>
This is what happens when you kneel before government.
Yes Mort, and Neville Chamberlain said:
"Peace for Our Time"
Adolf must have been as nice as Pol Pot? Amazing the bad press Adolf got after that.
<it would have been the <diceman> defence "This violent world made me drop all those bombs on civilians, honest miss">
Why would “diceman's” bombs bother you Mort?
According to Mort, it is all the same, all bad.
The people only had two options.
To die from diceman's bombs, or die from communism.
Mort can't be bothered with “standards” like diceman.
<While you have standards >
<I have principles >
In Mort's world the murderer who breaks into your house
is no different, than the homeowner who murders him
to protect what's left of his family.
Mort doesn't judge.
It is “all” wrong as far as Mort is concerned.
Yet Mort almost always, only complains about one side
of what he doesn't stand for.
Now if my assessment of Mort is incorrect. It is because Mort hides behind undefined
words like terrorism, standards, principle. Where Mort defines them as necessary.
|Jun-10-17|| ||diceman: <visayanbraindoctor:
<diceman> If I may say so, your MSM lies>
Heh, heh, you mean Trump collusion with Russia isnt true?
As I've said before VBD, the world decides things.
While my media can call my inner-cities
a "Great Society" body counts suggest differently.
Thanks for the strawman narrative anyway.
|Jun-10-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> <Adolf must have been as nice as Pol Pot? Amazing the bad press Adolf got after that>|
The Americans were doing great deals with the Nazis (a descendant of which became POTUS) until the Japanese spoiled it for everyone. Even then the Americans held out until Hitler formally invited them to fight.
|Jun-10-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <diceman> There's nothing strawman about what I'm writing you. I am pointing out that you've been duped by you MSM regarding your government's support of Pol Pot.|
BTW, didn't you ever wonder how Pol Pot and his officers survive for such a long time on the Cambodian-Thailand border after they had lost the rest of Cambodia to a Vietnamese-supported government? If you read other-side reports, they were supported logistically through Thailand with the consent and aid of the US.
What do you now feel that a man that you consider a mass murderer was actually US-supported; and that you did not even know about it?
<Colonel Mortimer: <diceman> <Adolf must have been as nice as Pol Pot? Amazing the bad press Adolf got after that>
The Americans were doing great deals with the Nazis>
Quite true, but again <diceman> probably does not know about this either.
<diceman> Again I recommend that you also read news and articles from other sides of the stadium, or out of it. It would give you a more balanced perspective of the world.
|Jun-10-17|| ||Colonel Mortimer: <visayanbraindoctor: <diceman> I am pointing out that you've been duped by you MSM.>|
The patient has already been administered 5,000 volts. Some other form of treatment may be required.
|Jun-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: A must-see classic.
Megyn Kelly keeps insinuating General Flynn and President Putin were spending time communicating illegally. Putin completely dunks her; that using her own logic, Kelly should be arrested and put to jail for having spent so much time with Putin. (",)
|Jun-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Meanwhile the Syrian army has driven all the way to the Iraqi border, and have met with Iraqi forces. This theoretically cuts jihadist forces inside Syria into two, preventing link-ups between northern and southern salients. |
Syrian internet chatter says that US warplanes were hovering around inside Iraqi airspace, with a tentative plan of bombing Syrian forces, in order to prevent them from reaching the border. Russia then warned the US military that Russian special forces were embedded within the advancing Syrian army forces. No bombing occurred and the Syrians successfully captured the border.
Syrian chatter claims that Trump has essentially defaulted US's Syrian foreign policy to the Pentagon and General Mattis, shutting out the State Department and the CIA. I actually regard this as better than Trump giving the Syrian agenda to the CIA and the State Department. The Pentagon and Mattis would be more concerned about American soldiers dying in a foreign war. If the State Department and the CIA had been in charge, I expect that US warplanes would have bombed those advancing Syrian Army forces, thus killing the Russian servicemen embedded in them. Russian Sukhois and S300s within Syria could well have struck back at the American warplanes. A dangerous escalation could have occurred.
|Jun-12-17|| ||diceman: <visayanbraindoctor: <diceman> There's nothing strawman about what I'm writing you. I am pointing out that you've been duped by you MSM regarding your government's support of Pol Pot.>|
Heh, heh, I know you're a "braindoctor"
didnt know that included mind reading!
Sure it is, you want to manufacture
my "media" and what I missed from my "media."
Classic, Pol Pot's, slaughter, terror, unfolds. CM runs to the politician, VBD runs to the media.
This reminds me of Thomas Sowells "Degrees of Nothing."
|Jun-12-17|| ||diceman: <Colonel Mortimer:
until the Japanese spoiled it for everyone.>
Not for you CM.
You stand on principles!
|Jun-12-17|| ||diceman: <This reminds me of Thomas Sowells "Degrees of Nothing.">|
Oh, he called it, "Varieties of Nothing."
|Jun-12-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Meet Aylan & Omran: Child victims used for Syrian war propaganda>|
More expose of propaganda fake news from the MSM intent on slandering Syria, and supporting moderate beheaders.
If one reads MSM alone, one would get the idea that the Syrian government is the terrorist in this war, and the terrorists the good guy. MSM can claim that the sky is green, and no doubt there will be people that will believe it.
|Jun-12-17|| ||twinlark: <diceman>
Get it together, man.
|Jun-14-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <The Syrian army and its allies reached the Syrian-Iraqi border, 70 km north of the crossing point of Al-Tanf, following a failed attempt by US forces to impose new “rules of engagement” and a “buffer zone” to prevent the Syrian-Iraqi interconnection on both sides of the border. With the arrival of the Syrian forces and their allies north of Al-Tanf, the American forces and their allies – stationed on the Syrian side of the border – were cut off from the north of Syria and were prevented from marking the partition point of Syria. Moreover, the US forces were stopped from reaching the besieged city of Deir Al-Zour, al-Mayadeen and southwest towards al-Bu Kamal. The US and its European and Syrian allies can no longer include the entire east of Syria in their control, as it is happening today in Raqqah and al-Hasaka provinces..|
Yes, the war is heading towards its final chapter without necessarily ending the internal struggle and partition of parts of the country. Territories are not expected to be handed to the central government in Damascus without concession. >
This interesting article essentially predicts that the Syrian war is about to come to an end with a permanent partitioning of some of its northern territories.
1. Note that the so-called Shia corridor (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon) would remain intact.
2. Any oil pipeline from the Arabian peninsula to Turkey would still have to pass Syrian-held ground.
3. Kurds would probably gain some form of autonomy.
4. Turkey would have expanded its area of control southward.
5. Russia retains its naval base in the Mediterranean.
6. After easily getting its way in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, the US now finds itself stymied in Syria thanks to a strong Russian reaction. Ditto in Ukraine. These last few years may signal the end of the immediate post-Soviet era wherein the US leadership could act unilaterally to dispose of governments it arbitrarily does not like.
|Jun-17-17|| ||twinlark: An interesting article by media Lens that concludes that the MSM monoply in the UK has been busted following the unexpectedly good results by Labour and especially jeremy Corbyn:|
|Jun-17-17|| ||heuristic: <vbd: US support of pol pot>
as always, there are a multitude of issues:
- from late 70's to early 80's, Cambodia's seat at UN was occupied by Khmer Rouge
= be sure to include the UN (ie the world) when casting shame
- support for Pol Pot was actually support for 3 entities; KR, KPNLF, ANS
= China supported KR directly. the US supported the other two. thus, the US supported Pol Pot indirectly.
- diplomatic "support" for a state/organization does NOT constitute endorsement.
= in this case, the issue was opposition to Vietnam and its puppet state in Cambodia. and of course, the ubiquitous "stability"!
|Jun-17-17|| ||heuristic: analysis of the nuances in politics rarely leads to conclusive assignments of fault.|
as indicated sometime ago; twinlark chessforum ; the overthrow of Iran's PM Mossadeq is complicated.
similar to Cambodia, there are other countries (Cam=China, Iran=UK) whose role should not be overlooked.
new documents backup this viewpoint.
|Jun-23-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Saudi Arabia & allies demand Qatar close Turkish base, shut Al Jazeera & more within 10 days>|
<Turkey has no intention of closing Qatar base despite Saudi ultimatum>
<Hired gun: Is war with Iran now inevitable under new Saudi crown prince?>
I would give it a 50- 50 chance. If the Wahabbi Sauds declare the Wahabbi Qataris as heretics, then I would give this brewing Saudi-Qatari war a 70 - 30 chance of occurring.
<In addition, Qatar must surrender all nationals who are wanted on terrorism charges by Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt.>
The only big anti-Qatari Saudi ally above that really matters IMO is Egypt. At first it looks strange that Egypt seems to actually support Syria, which the Sauds are attacking with proxy armies, yet also support the Sauds against Qatar. This is understandable only in the context of the intense decades-old dislike of the Egyptian secular leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Qatar supports. In brief the Egyptians have a long and big chip on the shoulder to grind against Qatar, stretching back to the time the MB was founded. Now the Egyptians see the opportunity to end the cash fount that funds the MB for good.
Erdogan and his party are MB supporters and so this move by Turkey into Qatar is expected. It also justifies the Turkish expansion into its former Ottoman domains.
If war occurs, Trump's USA would be overjoyed if Iran sends in troops to aid Qatar. It would be an excuse to strike at Iran directly. IMO it's best for Iran if it avoids sending troops to Qatar. Even if Iran decides that, US most likely would sink or shoot down any Iranian transport ship or plane over the Persian gulf.
On the other hand Turkey would not be so restrained, as it is not expected that US would strike at a fellow NATO member. I expect that Turkey would send in more troops to Qatar.
If Saudi invades Qatar, it is inevitable that the Saudi military would end up fighting not only Qataris but also Turkish soldiers.
<twinlark> Any opinion how this would unfold?
|Jun-23-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
<<twinlark> Any opinion how this would unfold?>
Pakistan has also sent troops to Qatar. This could get extremely messy. Turkey has a handful of troops in Qatar and is likely to rapidly expand their deployment there in the next week or so. If Saudi Arabia attacks, then there will be war between Turkey and Saudi Arabia - Erdogan cannot now afford to back down, notwithstanding the recent weakening of his military high command folloiwng the attempted coup as such a sign of weakness would fatally weaken his position domestically and ultimately in the region. He would be a dead man walking.
If Turkey is attacked in Qatar, it could legitimately invoke the NATO charter to call on the US and other NATO members to come to its aid against an aggressor KSA. How this would pan out is anyone's guess:
1. Despite appearances to the contrary both Turkey and Pakistan might cut their losses and simply retreat, leaving Qatar to fend for itself.
2. If Turkey invoke the NATO charter the US would be put on the spot. It becomes a devil's dance.
- If the US refuses to honour the charter, NATO is dead, as is the NATO base in Incirlik - with a full scale alliance with Turkey and Russia likely and even the possibility of Russian military base being set up in Incirlik instead.
- Accept and ties with the KSA are ruptured, and the Kingdom could descend into an unholy mess.
The imponderables are Iran and Russia. I don't know if either of these two countries is willing to go to war over this, not if the US stands by the KSA and allows Turkish forces to be attacked. In that situation, the KSA may win, but it could well be a pyrrhic victory and a diplomatic disaster with the GCC in tatters and US alliances unity in the region shattered.
However, control of Qatar and its resources would considerably strengthen KSA's financial situation as looting the smaller kingdom of its wealth would give the KSA much needed capital since its treasury has been drained in the Syrian and Yemeni wars.
There are a lot of factors at work here, not forgetting Israel, and anything can happen.
|Jun-23-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: If Turkey invoke the NATO charter>|
As I understand it, the NATO charter can only be invoked if the NATO country is attacked in its home soil. Since the Turkish base is in a foreign country, it follows that Turkey can't invoke it. (I may be wrong though.)
<The imponderables are Iran and Russia. I don't know if either of these two countries is willing to go to war over this>
IMO Russia definitely won't. One, after Syria, the Russians don't have the logistics nor money, and Qatar is even further away. Two, lobby groups within the Russian leadership would be hesitant to support a nation that aided Chechen Wahabbis in the Russia - Chechnya wars. Three, what benefit would Russia get if it openly sides with Qatar?
Iran probably won't, for the reason I gave above. The Iranians know full well US is roaring to get at them; and only needs the slightest of excuses.
I am not sure how the USA would react to a hot war. I think it would fence-sit. We could end up just hearing a bunch of 'We are gravely concerned about the situation, etc.' and no action. Except if Iran gets actively involved, in which case USA would strike, not at Qatar but at the Iranians.
The reason why I say a Saudi - Qatar war is 50 -50 is based on the firing of the King's nephew and the ascent of his warmongering son as crown prince. It indicates a policy shift that favors war at the top of the Saudi hierarchy.
On the other hand, there have been no reports of Saudi troop movements. Therefore war isn't imminent yet. If we see reports of troops movements, then the probability of immediate war would have jumped up.
From my point of view, I think this present Cold War turning warm is probably good for us. Funding to our local jihadists would probably be lessened.
<If Saudi Arabia attacks, then there will be war between Turkey and Saudi Arabia - Erdogan cannot now afford to back down>
If it occurs, I don't think it will be a declared war. By not declaring it, Turkey can easily extricate itself by simply leaving its Qatari base.
However, we'll see a scenario wherein Turkish troops are being airlifted by the thousands into Qatar, along with war materiel. Given the Saudi army's dismal performance in Yemen, the Turks might feel they can take on the Saudi army even from a long distance. If the Saudis can't advance, it will embolden Turkey to send in more troops and equipment. Turkey may even opt to invade into Saudi territory. For Erdogan, it would be an impressive victory- a bridgehead into the Arabian Peninsula itself.
One problem with the above Turkish dream is lack of air support. Qatar is a long way from Turkey. The Saudi air force could easily shoot down Turkish airlifters, and bomb Turkish troops. The Turks even at this point are probably arming their Qatari base with MANPADS. However, shooting down a few Saudi warplanes may not be enough. So I would favor the Sauds in a hot war. They have all the logistics. (Another factor why the Sauds would think invasion is a good idea.)
What happens if the Saudis find out they can't take Qatar? They could end up calling on the Egyptians for help. In Yemen the reluctant Egyptians sent only a token force, but given the opportunity to strike directly at the Qataris, Egypt might just send its best divisions.
|Jun-23-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindocotr>|
<As I understand it, the NATO charter can only be invoked if the NATO country is attacked in its home soil. Since the Turkish base is in a foreign country, it follows that Turkey can't invoke it. (I may be wrong though.)>
You understand correctly. Articles 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty apply:
<IMO Russia definitely won't. One, after Syria, the Russians don't have the logistics nor money, and Qatar is even further away. Two, lobby groups within the Russian leadership would be hesitant to support a nation that aided Chechen Wahabbis in the Russia - Chechnya wars. Three, what benefit would Russia get if it openly sides with Qatar?>
Agreed, with the caveat that if Iran is attacked then Russia could well come to its aid. The whole purpose of the GCC was to marginalise revolutionary Iran (ie: make sure the revolution didn't spread, much as the Arab Spring has been curtailed), and the current 13 point ultimatum to Qatar is designed to completely isolate Iran from other Gulf States. It's worth noting again that the gas fields that are jointly exploited by Iran and Qatar are the biggest on the planet.
<Iran probably won't, for the reason I gave above. The Iranians know full well US is roaring to get at them; and only needs the slightest of excuses.>
Do they need that much? They entirely confected the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Speaking of which, the US does not have a sparkling record with some of its erstwhile allies. Iraq was destroyed, the situation with Libya was supposed to have been normalised, Qatar hosts the biggest US base in Eurasia and looks set to be thrown under the KSA bus, depending upon who in the US one should listen to (Tillerson or Trump), and now the covert assistance the US is providing jihadis in Marawi (the latter obviously as a warning to Duterte).
Duterte needs to be careful, but he doesn't seem in any mood to compromise. He knows he could suffer a US-backed jackal coup of the kind that has been employed against other national leaders reluctant to toe the US line, and has said he is prepared to die for his beliefs.
<I am not sure how the USA would react to a hot war. I think it would fence-sit. We could end up just hearing a bunch of 'We are gravely concerned about the situation, etc.' and no action.>
Not to mention a bunch of "we urge everyone to exercise restraint" type of political pablum.
Anyone thinking that the US presence would deter the KSA is probably wrong, as I'm certain that the US would happily accommodate new landlords on the Qatari peninsula. But if it comes to a shooting war, the Qatari forces are quite considerable and can do considerable damage to the KSA before the tiny kingdom is obliterated. This would precipitate the KSA's slide into factionalism and dynastic rivalries and anarchy, not to mention losing what good will and patience it has in the region and on the world stage. Germany itself is strongly opposed to the KSA's ultimatum: https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/06...
<However, we'll see a scenario wherein Turkish troops are being airlifted by the thousands into Qatar, along with war materiel. >
I believe that is happening even as we speak since the KSA-led "alliance" has issued a 13 point ultimatum to Qatar: http://www.smh.com.au/world/close-a... George Galloway in Britain, an exceptionally knowledgeable pundit of the region, is convinced there will be a hot war in 10 days. So perhaps troop mobilisations won't take long as Qatar is immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia and within a few minutes range of its air force.
Btw, I found this interesting historical analysis on Norman Finkelstein's website of the events leading up to the current standoff, and which provides some much needed context that explains the suddenness of events, not to mention the falling out of notional allies and the changes within the House of Saud:
<Egypt might just send its best divisions.>
I have a feeling that if it comes down to that, it may be too late for the KSA. This has to be a "quick, victorious war" for it to benefit the Saudi Kingdom, otherwise a third war front draining its treasury could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Egypt may now be a KSA vassal, but I'm not sure al-Sisi wouldn't draw the line here, regardless of the nominally united front it poses with the KSA.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 347 OF 347 ·
A free online guide presented by Chessgames.com