@artician- the really hard part while trying not to burn-out on humanity is suffering apathy and mindless subservience in a time when knowledge and information is on-tap and available to non-members of the "club." -Clear light IS a motherfucker and most people are too weak to process information and respond accordingly.

Same old, same old. The few will always control the many and destroy the weak.

The emperor wears no clothes not only that, he sucks cock by choice and is still breathing the same air as us.

Unless you eradicate the queen the ants leave a clean slate for the next infestation.

No more metaphor, anyone with an opinion on geopolitics, or religion seeking to argue premise within the confines of these faulty estates are masturbating in public at this chapter in earth history as the cunts will succeed. Best to get as far from the blast zone as possible screams the expat inside my head.

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

It's alaways either fanboys (Keep grasping at straws Republicans, keep it up with your personal hate vendetta against Obama. Keep banging the impeachment drums instead of running the country.)

or insects-

I shit on geopolitics and wish to see the redux on the ashes of the current world system mates, there's no point-by-point with me, sorry to have shat on another circle-jerk.

Yes, double standards can be found anywhere and everywhere you look in geopolitics, astute observation there. Are you interested in adding anything more than that to the discussion though?

There is an actual real world behind all of this. People are dying during our discussion. I've lost patience for people decrying an action without being willing to put forward and defend an alternative. The burden of proof lies as much on those championing inaction as it does on those championing action. Do you believe Israel should not intervene while arms are shipped to Hezbollah? Would you prefer that? It's a simple enough position, but unless you are gonna stand behind it or something else then you're not taking things as seriously as they deserve to be.

I'm not really making an argument, just critiquing the one offered in the video. As Lucky points out, we're in agreement that it is ridiculous to compare territorial conquest by military force to immigration. My last statement about how the parrot protestors could respond is to point out the absurdity of that comparison (and to point out their ignorance in regards to the benefits of immigration). I also agree with Lucky's interpretation of the guy's message and with the message itself.

From a moral perspective, I don't believe that successfully taking something by force is self-justifying. On the other hand, the use of force at the level of geopolitics is often self-justifying, even if we find it morally repugnant as individuals.

The idea that either political party has "led" the US into wars is simply misleading in itself.
Nor does this video examine deaths in percentage to the population.

Wars are generally fought for geopolitical reasons that are in the interests of the ruling elite and industrial powers that benefit from conquest, friendly markets, and cheap resources. These power structures operate largely outside of the political process.

But the vid is a nice reminder that for the vast majority of it's history, the US has been at war. Constant war.

Anyone else thinks that World War Z was a bad book?
For me, Brooks tries to give a serious global perspective of a zombie apocalypse, but his portrayal of different cultures and real world geopolitical forces falls flat.
I know it's pointless complaining about a lack of realism in a novel about zombies, but it ruins my immersion when the author seems to get his impression of the world from American news and the Karate Kid.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Jinx:
because ddos is hacking like crowding the entrance to a bank is a bank robbery.

Hacking is now an all inclusive term, it just means anything we don't approve of done with a computer. The news can't educate anyone, and the term keeps being used ad nauseam. Sometimes I get lectured by older people on the dangers of hacking, it's sad that they have know education on the subject yet they choose to inform others.
EDIT: By the way there is a documentary coming out about Anonymous and their effect on our society. It looks to me like it's full of itself, saying that Anon is now seriously influencing geopolitics. I don't see any changes brought about by Anon so I'm not really sure how the movie will present it's thesis. It seems to me that the world talks about Hackers with a sort of awe, and some of the hackers are buying into it.

It annoys me how full of it they seem to be. DDOS is the online equivalent of turning up on the street outside of a business with signs and protesting. Its fitting in this online world that we should have online activism but calling it hacking (ok, I guess if they are running a botnet then you might just about define that as hacking) really only serves to delegitmise any cause whilst simultaneously giving the anons a false sense of importance or power. They need to realise that their actions, while perhaps well intentioned, are still only really a mild inconvenience and they shouldn't let their message be distorted by the medias poor attempt to label them. My 2 cents anyway.

>> ^Jinx:

because ddos is hacking like crowding the entrance to a bank is a bank robbery.


Hacking is now an all inclusive term, it just means anything we don't approve of done with a computer. The news can't educate anyone, and the term keeps being used ad nauseam. Sometimes I get lectured by older people on the dangers of hacking, it's sad that they have know education on the subject yet they choose to inform others.

EDIT: By the way there is a documentary coming out about Anonymous and their effect on our society. It looks to me like it's full of itself, saying that Anon is now seriously influencing geopolitics. I don't see any changes brought about by Anon so I'm not really sure how the movie will present it's thesis. It seems to me that the world talks about Hackers with a sort of awe, and some of the hackers are buying into it.

>> ^criticalthud:

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.
it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.


Yup, my favourite presentation of this information is:
http://videosift.com/video/Robert-Newmans-History-of-Oil

It's 45 minutes long, but an excellent mix of standup comedy and facts.

>> ^criticalthud:

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.
it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.

Good points, but then again the name of the show is "Crash Course". I am extremely impressed with how well this web series can hit the broad strokes and even touch on a surprising amount of nuance considering each video/subject is roughly 10 minutes long... Almost all are easy upvotes from my point of view!

Great vid but a little hazy on what started the war. There were the official reasons, and then the actual reasons. At this point history shows that the lead up and start of WWI was largely about geopolitics: 3rd world empires with their cheap resources and the rise of oil and technology. Even in that day and age, nations were quick to understand the importance and advantages of access to energy, especially oil, and other resources and raw materials. The only question was how the world and it's resources were to be divided.

it's pretty important to get this aspect right, because nothing has really changed, and geopolitical considerations dictate the foreign policy of most major countries, especially the US.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era...
They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare...
I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Thank you, that was largely how I understood things to be within the tribal regions as well.

I have troubles with calling the tribal regions not really part of Pakistan when it's pointed out how bad some of the boys there are, but later when an American drone kills some of those bad boys in that region it is a gross affront to Pakistan's national sovereignty. It's either part of Pakistan or it's not, and if it is part of Pakistan and America is supposed to mind it's business what is America expected to do when the bad boys from that tribal region keep killing Americans and more importantly and in even greater numbers the moderate Pakistani's who are the closest America has to true allies in the region.


Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family.

I'd argue that they never really bothered anyone because they'd largely been getting what they wanted. That's not the kind of problem that gets better just because you keep giving the extremists what they want. It leads to a situation where a guy like Osama can find enough friends to hide within a mile of the very Military Academy that Musharraf graduated from. I firmly do not accept that the 'war on terror' created the problem, it just forced it to be recognized and dealt with.

Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

Agreed on both counts. As far as America is concerned it's more cost effective to just reset the clock in Afghanistan every so often so the problems there are kept localized and not something that will bother them for another decade. It's a twisted game and I desperately want to see real solutions embraced that will see the moderate locals have a real chance at being the victors in the end instead of the perpetual victims.

Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

I'd say the Saudi's are even worse. They've spent billions of dollars in Pakistan's tribal regions setting up jihadi training camps and calling them 'schools'. Regrettably the male only students come out illiterate but well trained in extremist Wahhabi doctrines and guerrilla warfare. The Saudi 'charities' have spent more money on 'education' in these tribal areas than Pakistan's own government and have been doing since long, long before the 'war on terror' ever was recognized by the West or Pakistan. That building block of an internal war against Pakistan itself has been building for a long time and without the hard push Bush made I firmly believe that would still be official Pakistani policy. The situation would be worse and when ever the militants decided to start pushing it would have been far more unpleasant than what Pakistan has faced so far from those elements.

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

I would honestly love to take you up on that. My kids are a bit young but I do hope to make it over there someday. I too believe you guys are a great bunch in a bad situation, the road out of it though is just so long, difficult and nasty. I wish all of you there the best of luck and honestly spend a lot of time trying to understand what is happening there and what small part little old me can play.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

>> ^criticalthud:

ummm, from a propaganda standpoint, there are some corollaries for sure.
But, let's look at some geopolitics.
In a world of diminishing resources, Iran is sitting on some of the largest oil reserves.
Israel, on the other hand, is sitting on a piece of worthless desert called the holy land and depends on foreign oil imports and American Aid. That American aid is also highly dependent on the US continuing to essentially control the oil trade. Oil is traded in dollars, and it is that massive circulation that helps keep the American dollar afloat (each dollar is HIGHLY leveraged (ie: debt)).
So who wants what? Religious crazies aside, from a geo-political standpoint Israel has very little to offer Iran, but control or influence over Iran's oil reserves has quite a bit to offer Israel.
Now...why would Iran want to have a nuclear energy program when it has vast oil reserves?
-- just like Venezuela, who is limiting the amount they produce, if they can use less of their oil now, in a world of diminishing energy resources, it means that in the future they wield more and more geo-political power. And energy is wealth. The more they control their own resources, the more they can control price points of resources, which is a large part of how the world powers have become world powers.


Your armchair analysis is pretty thin.

One of your main premises is about how Israel occupies a bunch of 'worthless desert'? And you then believe that is a strong driver in Israel's interest in Iranian oil reserves?

Middle East politics goes a lot deeper than that. The 'worthless desert' Israel occupies is BAR NONE the most sought after and fought over piece of land in the entire middle east over the last century. You can not ignore the importance of the cultural and religious pressures in the region that make up the complex relationship between Israel-Iran-Saudi-Syria-Egypt-... and on and on.

Survival is still Israel's driving focus. Iran openly and proudly supports Hezbollah and Hamas and their attacks on Israel. If Israel even suspects that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, that is a very short path to a very legitimate concern for Israel to be taking very seriously. Sure, it's 90% likely that Iran isn't foolish enough to give a nuclear weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah, but that remaining 10% is still understandable enough cause for Israel to be nervous and considering their options.