@RFlagg
i am watching the video right now and have not gotten to the jessica lynch segment,but the jessica lynch story was utter bullshit:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0905-09.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/15/iraq.usa2
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/bbc-proves-jessica-lynch-rescue-story-was-a-hoax/

i agree with his underlying message that opinions are being manipulated by those who most profit/benefit.noam chomsky probably makes the best argument in his book "manufacturing consent".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMA4B2ZnQ2o

Significantly more substance than "WMDs in Iraq" ever had...

Well, to be brutally honest, I knew that before we even set foot in Iraq that this type of stuff was going to happen (if not even worse stuff further down the road) simply because the ONLY two examples in history we really have that allowed for the successful creation of new countries after horrific wars were: Japan and Germany.

But, there were some major things that needed to be noticed, if indeed Iraq ended up being a successful story; though it would have taken a few generations and perhaps 30 years... It would require us to remain in Iraq for a VERY long time.

I called it before the war even started. I literally stated that if we pulled out before we succeed in "our" goal (and BTW, we STILL have not "pulled out" of Japan nor Germany, but we aren't enemies either; but it shows you the level of commitment we had in the 50's versus our, "...we have to see results in one year, otherwise we'll just drop the whole thing like hot bricks...", type of idiocy prevalent in our politicians and populous right now...

I don't think we should have EVER gone into Iraq, simply because we never had the backbone NOR the stomach to actually remain there and to see it ALL the way through. When Bush proposed this war, if he would have been a smart man, he would have told the entire nation that going there would be a new level of commitment we hadn't been used to for quite some time. IT WOULD get Americans killed; possibly even a fairly high amount...

Nobody simply wanted to face the truth and reality of what they wanted to achieve and WHAT it would actually take to get it done. Instead, we went to war, just long enough (and I really hope this wasn't the biggest reason; but, my EXTREMELY cynical and negative side wants to say it's true...) to line the pockets of the politicians that signed on and, of course, the banks, portfolios, and third parties all involved in stealing--literally--billions of taxpayer dollars and making billions more in revenue and other sources...

Truly making Cheney and Bush utterly despicable. By that point, that everything was realized to be an utter falsehood we had two choices: stick to the course created for a false reason (but turn it into on of history's greatest success stories; and WE COULD have done it, it just required...well...something Americans didn't wish to give Iraqis, sadly); and dropping the war as fast as possible with some sort of "transition" to the Iraqi government.

We took option two and we KNEW full well (at least if you were smart enough to know ANYTHING about history, just what was about to come eventually for Iraq) that their "peace" we created for them, to "save" them, was utter horse-shiat. They are now paying for the war crimes our leaders perpetrated against them...

Had we stayed, if we were still there and the media was patiently trying to explain to the American people WHY we had to stay--if we TRULY wish to FREE a country and make it into something great and new--it takes time and a lot of it.

Like I said, if you want to see what you have to do to pull this off, go look at Japan and Germany following WW2. It's not pretty; life WILL be lost. But, it might, just might, be better than this jihad social network that is in its infancy trying to become a true monster...



/political rant--because like the guy that Chomsky refers to, I saw this crap coming a long, long, long time ago
//I really had issues with the whole Iraq thing back in the day; but, I did say that if we went in, we should prepare to commit not for years, but for DECADES... I think THAT is where the American people, in general, didn't realize how truly long this fight would really be as it was indeed a "generational" fight... To me, it makes complete sense why we utterly FAILED, but ALSO why we were beginning to get things to actually work (and then flushed it all down the toilet--because a President sent us over to fight a war that I don't believe we were mentally prepared to REALLY win/fight; and as I said at the end, our soldiers (and their families) simply weren't ready for a war that would span a decade or more...
///Too many people think like the politicians do with war; war should be "nice and clean", "quick and simple", "profits and power"; as Sherman once said which applies to these type of politicians, but sadly many Americans in general who see war like a video game, not recognizing the true horror AND the true lengths men, woman, and children in those areas will need to change to make peace a word that can once again be common place in their society--not just for the hopeful: "I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.

The problem is that you think that you get to decide where the starting line is. The path you are pointing down requires taking in the totality of history, not using some arbitrary point that is within living memory

For example, when do you think this started?

Was it with the Arab Spring and Assad's put down of the revolution? Maybe the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Perhaps when Iraq invaded Kuwait? When Libya bombed the plane at Lockerbie? The 6-day war? The establishment of the state of Israel? British Colonialism in the Middle East? The Crusades? The Battle of Yarmouk in 636?

Trying to find a singular, root cause is not how you end a conflict. That is done through humanizing your enemy, recognizing the futility of your efforts, finding alternative means to meet your needs, compromising and forgiving.

(source: MA in conflict resolution and 5 years of peacebuilding work)

This seems pretty naive to me. Isis has killed thousands of people, according to a CNN report:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

According to the syrian observatory for human rights, Isis has murdered 3200 people in Syria alone. Other reports place the death toll in Iraq at 7000 people.

They have millions of dollars at their disposal, they are allied with Boko Haram, and they not just in Iraq and Syria but all over North Africa.

To say they are weak is naive..weak organizations don't have millions of dollars, territory all over the middle east and murder thousands of people.

Where is the option for the cotton planter to change careers to something they find interesting and challenging?

Does it matter? If you have a job that you studied for in college and suddenly notice it doesnt fit you, you have to work a lot to correct that for no pay, you actually have to pay for it. Also if youre 40+ and want to start a new career human resource managers will rather take someone who didnt have the issues like you and has the years experience in actual work at the same job. So you will always be at a huge disadvantage if you decide to change professions.
All these "super successful" people you see on TV that proudly talk about how they did all that so well, "just because they worked soooooo hard" (everyone either does that, or claims it), are exceptions to the rule!



Where are the benefits of infrastructure?

Uhm, those infrastructures are mostly used to get to your job or do your job anyway. What good are they if you work where you live, like those slaves?



How about healthcare?

AFAIK slaves got good healthcare, since they were property and the owner would lose money if they "broke" and couldnt be fixed.
Also I wouldnt call American healthcare good. People have to pay for it. And often have to take huge debts on themselves and their family to survive or be still able to work.



How about individual's rights?

Individual's rights? Yeah, maybe against other "slaves", but not against the state or rich people. They will always have a huge advantage compared to you. And actually they do what they want all over the world. Just look at those cesspools Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Millions killed for what? Are you safer now than before 9/11? No. The whole world is actually MUCH MUCH unsafer now. All thanks to your masters that care so much about the "individual's rights".
They even have the audacity to threaten NATO countries with invasion if they ever dared to bring one of them before an international tribunal.



How about protection from hostility?

Hostility from whom? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorists who are only created due to inhumane politics aswell? Criminals? Do you know that crime is actually not something we are born with, but we actually learn to do, because of our surroundings? If a lot of people feel treated unfair and cant do anything about it, crime rate will skyrocket. It has been that way for thousands of years. Look at other countries that treat their people much more humane and actually even pay then enough to live a good life even if they dont work, or have never worked! They shudder when seeing American crime rates. You can compare yourself more to Brazil than to Europe.



How about ever improving quality of life?

Most people are extremely stressed in their life, due to their job, not having enough time because of their job, being frustrated because other people have more then them, while working less (or not at all), having health issues due to their work and they know they cant change the job because they wont get another one, they simply hate their job, but also know they cant get a better one, etc, etc, etc.
There was a study a few years ago where they found out that people 500-1000 years ago were actually very happy. They didnt have to work nearly as much as we do nowadays! It wasnt rare that they only worked 6 months a year, and even if they worked they had MUCH longer breaks every day and didnt work as long. And they lived a good life for those times. Of course nowhere near as good as the monarchs, but it wasnt nearly as bad as its commonly claimed.

One thing has changed though: If youre smart and/or lucky (as in having a rich family) you can open your own company, do what you love. But even that gets harder and harder because the competition gets higher in numbers and in quality.

The foreign policy of both Russia and the US is far more motivated by domestic policy than "imperialism" or "cold war tactics".

Putin just needs to appear to be winning. Winning wars, media arguments, just winning anything. Crossword competitions, ice hockey games, fishing, push-ups, literally anything. With not much to be gained in Ukraine quickly, he can switch to helping Assad to quash rebels and appear to fight the IS. Russian air support and logistics will have small losses and big PR gains. Putin is clever so he will avoid direct confrontation with the IS leading to a long stalemate and much destruction, in Iraq mainly.

Obama needs to do stupid unworkable things like "spread democracy", "help Israel no matter what", "broker peace in the middle east" and "support 'friends' of the US, some of them as bad as Assad" - its nearly impossible for him to have a sane middle east policy. There is nothing Obama can do in the short term in Syria. He probably cant reconsider his position on Assad and there is no reasonable path to topple Assad gracefully. Also no direct path to fight IS - Turkey will fight Kurds before fighting IS, Israel has to be careful.

Is Iran the key then? Iran is definitely not to be trusted http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11903290/Eight-of-Irans-womens-football-team-are-men.html

What? How could anyone seriously propose Obama stop NATO help for Ukraine linked to removing Assad from Syria? What good would that do to anyone but Putin?

Obama does not decide what NATO does and where.

Ukraine will fall to Putin without west European help.

Syria is a tribal and religious mess where no one has anything to gain right now, Assad is hated but legitimate. Rebels are split into factions with unclear objectives. Who exactly would the USA support in Syria if Assad was somehow "removed" by the Russians?

No one wants to fight the IS; Syria wants to fight rebels, Turkey wants to fight Kurds, Iran wants to fight Iraq, everyone wants to fight Israel. OK Kurds want to fight the IS but Kurds dont get much love on this planet. Even Kurds and Assad and Russian air support are unlikely to be enough to fight the IS.

Russia "good cop" in Ukraine... excuse me? You lost me there...

PS: Obama may just have to rethink his position on Assad, everything else is just a standoff hoping to force Putin to respect international treaties that he has agreed to. Which is unlikely. The only possible way out is for Putin to succumb to internal Russian problems over time.

As I said in that thread, I don't see an incentive for the US to intervene. This isn't the Cold War battle over spheres of influence, neither does oil have the same geopolitical relevance. Despite the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya, none has led to a spike in oil prices? Instead it's fallen precipitously. Why, because the US being the swing shale oil producer has capped world prices.

Meanwhile I listed the reasons for Russia to intervene, none of which you have challenged or refuted. TOWs have by all accounts been supplied by the Saudis. I don't think Russia is attempting to destabilize Syria, but they do wish to prop up Assad. Bombing has conveniently been primarily of non-ISIS rebels since they challenge the regime more directly than ISIS which is being bombed already.

Syria includes a litany of rebel groups some as radical as ISIS. From what I have read it is suspected that both the Syrian army and al-Nusra/ISIS used various chemical weapons. The Syrian army has undoubtedly dropped barrel bombs, weapons designed to create indiscriminate collateral damage to civilians just like chemical weapons, it is entirely consistent that they would have also tried using chemical weapons which is practical terms are no less likely to be deadly to civilians or likely to incite terror. There are by all accounts >5,000 different rebel groups in Syria. That you would ascribe them all as wanting chaos would suggest you've been fed a narrative.

A Cold War MAD mindset makes little sense today. Russian bombing of western Europe in some kind of hypothetical retaliation against the US makes no sense in this day and age. In any case it was scrapped because of Putin's paranoia.

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

Presuming that I don't think it was completely stage managed (I do) or that Russia isn't trying to score cheap points at America's expense (it is).

But again, that doesn't make him wrong. The west, headed by the US, has been putting it's sticky fingers in to the middle east for over 50 years, and it's only gotten worse and worse. How much western equipment now rests in IS hands? How many WMD's did the US find in Iraq? How many innocent people have died in the decades of war waged in the name of what exactly?

You can gussy it up as much as you like, but the US has been preaching the dogma of the greatest nation on earth/leaders of the world for years. Leaders set examples, so I guess it's not a massive surprise that the world is in such a god awful state...

I have little regard for Putin but for most of this dog and pony show, he's pretty much on the money.

Hmm, let's see... Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a quarter of a million people murdered (to no end, the war was already effectively over).

Americans have killed more than that in subsequent years (in fact, some estimates place a higher death toll of Iraqi civilians alone at American feet). I remember during the invasion of Iraq, American forces shot heavy ordinance (M1 Tank main gun, I believe) at a hotel full of journalists.

As the man says, "I'm afraid of Americans...."

Yeah... it's Muslims who blow shit up around the world.

Extremely one sided "explanation". His view is pretty much the same as an extreme right winger, just from the opposite direction.

He says that people say that immigrants and refugees is the same in this crisis. The thing is for some countries it is. If they are in that country, even if they are not accepted as immigrants, they are allowed to stay. Look at Germany for example. Only EXTREMELY few people get deported from there. Period. If youre lucky enough to get into Germany, you will most likely stay there.

He also says that most people arriving in Europe are refugees. Thats also bullshit. Only about a third are refugees from unstable countries. Thanks to speeches like that of Merkel and her politics people are streaming into Europe in hope for a better life, because everyone expects the land of milk and honey.
The fact of the matter is that nobody would care much if it all were refugees, who will be there only temporary.

He also puts most blame on Assad and Iran and Russia, blah blah. He even puts the chemical attack on Assad, even though NOTHING has been proven and actually point more towards the extremists incl. ISIS. The USA, UK and France started that war by supporting those extremists from day one and even before that! The country was stable before that! Same mistake like in Iraq and Libya! And their allies in that region supported them too! And then he wonders why they dont take refugees. LOL! Unbelievable...

Here is a MUCH better explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB4WWYSnXmM
Notice how they avoid to talk about the real cause of this crisis, yet get a huge applause when they mention it. Guess why. Same reason most western media avoids it.

I just lost a lot of respect for this guy. Because if he doesnt get this right, he wont get other things right either.

This comes up a bit short on some issues.

For instance, the ongoing drought in the Euphrates-Tigris area pushed people in Syria into the cities, adding pressure to already overstretched infrastructure.

Also, what about the West's glorious idea to run illegal wars of aggression in Iraq and Libya, which destabilized the entire region? Nevermind Afghanistan or the bombing campaigns in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. What about the gulag that is Palestine? What about the economic consequences of our obsession with free trade, taking away from developing countries the ability to protect and nurture their own industries? What about our subsidies of farm exports, thereby undercutting local farmers and destroying these peoples' ability to feed themselves?

All of these countries have heaps of issues of their own, but let's not forget that "we" not only didn't help, but actively made things worse in many cases. As cities drain resources from the hinterland, so do our centers of capitalism drain resources from developing nations. They are our hinterland.

Yugoslavia seems to have been forgotten by most people, but the split and following neoliberal treatment left the entire area in a state of instability. Kosovo today is basically run by organised crime.

So, as horrible as Assad's actions are, very few countries are in a position to offer meaningful criticism, having pissed away what little moral authority we had to begin with.

And as far as legal responsibilities towards refugees go, I'd say after torture, wars of aggression, global espionage, a stateless people in Europe (Roma/Sinti), destruction of a society (Greece), an openly xenophobic regime (Hungary), etc, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that "rights" are meaningless unless actively enforced by someone with the required amount of power.

Look at Calais, look at Lesbos, look at Lampedusa, and tell me all about our European morals and values...

Written by the grandson of a man whose family fled from Silesia in '45 with nothing but two bags and walked all the way to Lower Saxony on foot.