Arab Nations cuts ties with Qatar

[SpankyMcFarland]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/23/the-guardian-view-on-al-jazeera-muzzling-journalism

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Who the Hell watches al-Jazeera other than terrorists and their supporters?

You're free to support Saudi Arabia.  From Spanky's article...

Quote

The Saudi-led alliance considers al-Jazeera to be a propaganda tool for Islamists.

I watch al-Jazeera. That said I also watch Fox News which is also a source of the propaganda that compels Western Exceptionalists to inspire Islamists to retaliate against us.

I know for a goddamn fact you support our exceptionalist foreign policies.and of course you're free to continue doing so and at our ongoing peril. 

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I watch al-Jazeera.

Nice... how many hearts did you give it?

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Nice... how many hearts did you give it?

I'd probably give them more than Fox when it comes to news but al-Jazeera can't touch Fox when it comes to comic relief, I'm watching it now actually.

How do you guys explain our government allowing Telus Optik to spread the radicalizing material al-Jazeera puts out anyway?  It seems our allies in Saudi Arabia would certainly like to see the freedom of the press silenced in Qatar.  Is that something you can get behind here at home?  Shouldnt we show some solidarity with our poor besieged friends in the House of Saud?

Who's side are we on anyway?  

Edited June 24, 2017 by eyeball

[OftenWrong]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

How do you guys explain our government allowing Telus Optik to spread the radicalizing material al-Jazeera puts out anyway?  It seems our allies in Saudi Arabia would certainly like to see the freedom of the press silenced in Qatar.  Is that something you can get behind? 

It's not the kind of thing I like to get behind.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's not the kind of thing I like to get behind.

I bet you'd still get behind it anyway.

[SpankyMcFarland]

What AJ Arabic has brought to the ME is real debate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/23/why-saudi-arabia-hates-al-jazeera-so-much/?utm_term=.082f0b8deda7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/06/23/why-arab-states-are-wrong-to-try-to-shut-down-al-jazeera/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.f3c570ca4707

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/al-jazeera-qatar-saudi-arabia-muslim-brotherhood/531471/

Al Jazeera needs to be compared with local competitors like Al Arabiya. By that yardstick it has made a highly positive contribution. 

 

 

[OftenWrong]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

I bet you'd still get behind it anyway.

Silencing the opposition is more the style of Muslims, and the left.

[Hudson Jones]

Al Jazeera is one of the best news sources out there. Besides all the awards they have won for journalism and broadcasting, you just have to look at who hates them to know they must be doing something good to be pissing off these actors:

Governments of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Mahmoud Abbas, ISIS, Neo-cons, Al Qaeda, etc. 

Here is a link to the list of awards won until 2015. 

They've won several awards at the New York Festivals, including broadcaster of the year.

They also won the big prizes at The National Union of Journalists this year.

They only knock on them, in my opinion, is that they self-censor when it comes to the Qatari government.

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Silencing the opposition is more the style of Muslims, and the left.

It's the style of dictators, period.

Anyone who would support either one or another of any ideological bent would be equally guilty of a crime against humanity if I had anything to say about it.

You think dictators are fine and the cheesy way you defend this is to effectively declare 'I know I support crimes against humanity but so do you'. It's pretty pathetic how far you'll go to not make a point.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

You think dictators are fine and the cheesy way you defend this is to effectively declare 'I know I support crimes against humanity but so do you'. It's pretty pathetic how far you'll go to not make a point.

That's incorrect. I defend dictatorship by saying it's necessary in places where people are unable to live with one another in peace. They need to be forced to get along at the barrel of a gun. There are places in the world where dictatorships are useful, and where they are terrible. I have explained this clearly to you a number of times now.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

That's incorrect. I defend dictatorship by saying it's necessary in places where people are unable to live with one another in peace. They need to be forced to get along at the barrel of a gun. There are places in the world where dictatorships are useful, and where they are terrible. I have explained this clearly to you a number of times now.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I saw your sentiment honestly and openly expressed in the statements of our politicians and in the foreign policies they've executed.

Is this the argument you'd like to see our representatives use at a reconciliation commission when they're asked to provide an explaination?  You clearly said dictatorships can be fine if they're moderate.  Can you provide examples of the moderate dictatorships we've forced to get along?

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, eyeball said:

Perhaps I'd feel differently if I saw your sentiment honestly and openly expressed in the statements of our politicians and in the foreign policies they've executed.

Is this the argument you'd like to see our representatives use at a reconciliation commission when they're asked to provide an explaination?  You clearly said dictatorships can be fine if they're moderate.  Can you provide examples of the moderate dictatorships we've forced to get along?

My thinking is that Dictatorship is undesirable, in general but is necessary in some cases, and preferably only as a transition state.Examples are countries where there has been prolonged civil war, where factions cannot reconcile their differences and live under democracy. In that case it is better to impose dictatorship as a form of martial law to stop the war and bring peace and stability to the country. That is what I meant when I said, there can be situation where a moderate dictatorship is preferable to a disfunctional democracy.

[Army Guy]

On 6/18/2017 at 1:24 PM, GostHacked said:

Heros don't get rescued.  Sorry, that's a bit harsh.

But it turns out her 'battlescars' were not from battle, but from something else. (vehicle accident?)  The Iraqi doctors treated here well and US special forces trashed the place that was helping her recover. I guess that's how one says 'thank you'.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/04/26/saving_private_jessica_lynch_10_years_later.html

Quote

“She was in pretty bad shape. There was blunt trauma, resulting in compound fractures of the left femur (upper leg) and the right humerus (upper arm). And also a deep laceration on her head,” Houssona said. “She took two pints of blood and we stabilized her. The cut required stitches to close. But the leg and arm injuries were more serious.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/04/26/saving_private_jessica_lynch_10_years_later.html

Hero's come in all shapes and sizes, colors, races, even genders.....and while she did not rescue the free world that day, nor find the cue for cancer, she did do her job, she went well beyond that considering her injuries, and through all that pain, sensory overload.....seeing many of her comrades were lying dead, or wounded.....despite all her efforts and the efforts of her convoy they were rapidly over whelmed and captured by the enemy......don't think for one second after the shooting stopped that the violence stopped, because it did'nt......lets not forget that these iraqis had been bombed, shot at ,by everything the coalition had in it's arsenal and  suffer huge losses to the coalition wpns already......to say they would be in a foul mood , ready to rip any American to shreds is an under statement...........Ya she might not be a hero to you, but there is alot more to her story than down playing it all as vehicle accident, .....  

i just want to clarify something, her convoy was lost, behind enemy lines, when it got ambushed by Iraqi military forces, a large portion of the convoy was killed in this action....., then captured.....Another note, she was a mechanic, not highly trained in these matters so yes it would have been extremely violent, extremely fast, and extremely brutal, The Iraqi's were not out handing out flowers and blankets, they were Infantry soldiers trained in ambushes.....Her injuries were inflicted as a result of combat......resulting from her vehicle rolling over during the ambush....

 

Quote

The Iraqi medical staff fanned out to assess the damage. In all, 12 doors were broken, a sterilized operating theatre contaminated, and the specialized traction bed in which Lynch had been placed was trashed.

they did not trash the place, they conducted a force entry, with the use of speed and violence.....ya shit gets broken...you make it sound like they went out of their way to trash the place for spite......nothing like that happened......American SF forces were not there to be nice, they were their to rescue Captured American soldiers and recover their dead......and if they broke a few things in the process, or even hurt a few feelings to bad.....they picked their side and paid for that mistake....just like Private lynch did, and the rest of her comrades.....

Edited June 26, 2017 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

On 6/17/2017 at 6:37 PM, marcus said:

It's well documented that the pentagon lied and made up stories about what happened to Jessica Lynch. 

On April 24, 2007, Lynch gave congressional testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the Pentagon had erroneously portrayed her as a "Rambo from the hills of West Virginia" when, in fact, she never fired a shot after her truck was ambushed.[34]

In a prepared statement, she said: "I am still confused as to why they chose to lie and tried to make me a legend.."

Source

 

SO what are you telling me here that i can not say i think she is a hero.....what is it that you did for your country again....what is it that makes you an expert on this topic...

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

My thinking is that Dictatorship is undesirable, in general but is necessary in some cases, and preferably only as a transition state.Examples are countries where there has been prolonged civil war, where factions cannot reconcile their differences and live under democracy. In that case it is better to impose dictatorship as a form of martial law to stop the war and bring peace and stability to the country. That is what I meant when I said, there can be situation where a moderate dictatorship is preferable to a disfunctional democracy.

Do you have any specific examples of what you mean? Surely when a civilized country or an alliance/coalition of civilized countries resort to such a measure they would only do so under the aegis of an agreed to set of guidelines and legal precepts or so you'd think. Any examples that include evidence of these would sure be helpful.  In fact I'd say they'd be a pretty critical ingredient when having to account for whatever actions needed to be taken.

Is it fair to say that overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a dictatorship on the people who elected the overthrown government would be so far outside what you've described as to be the complete opposite?  I'd say it would be so far outside what you're saying and so egregious it would be a crime against humanity. That said perhaps I'm wrong and you can provide examples where such an extreme action was justified and legally executed.    

Edited June 26, 2017 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

On 6/24/2017 at 7:57 PM, OftenWrong said:

That's incorrect. I defend dictatorship by saying it's necessary in places where people are unable to live with one another in peace. They need to be forced to get along at the barrel of a gun. There are places in the world where dictatorships are useful, and where they are terrible. I have explained this clearly to you a number of times now.

Was taking Saddam Hussein out the right decision then? What about Qaddafi? Why are they gone, but the Saudis keep on causing more terrorism via the West's help?

[OftenWrong]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Do you have any specific examples of what you mean?

Perhaps Yugoslavia is one example.

34 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Was taking Saddam Hussein out the right decision then? What about Qaddafi? Why are they gone, but the Saudis keep on causing more terrorism via the West's help?

In middle eastern countries there have been long-standing feuds between Sunni and Shia muslims, and other types such as Kurds. None of these countries are democratic by our standards, and probably cannot be. Remember, they kill each other in greater numbers than those who are killed by "us". Regularly, constantly. Iraq was a shit hole but now it is an even deeper hell hole.

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-06-26 at 1:35 AM, eyeball said:

Is it fair to say that overthrowing a democratically elected government and imposing a dictatorship on the people who elected the overthrown government would be so far outside what you've described as to be the complete opposite?  I'd say it would be so far outside what you're saying and so egregious it would be a crime against humanity. That said perhaps I'm wrong and you can provide examples where such an extreme action was justified and legally executed.    

There's always a reason for things. Perhaps give an example where this has happened and I will give you my opinion.

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Perhaps Yugoslavia is one example.

In middle eastern countries there have been long-standing feuds between Sunni and Shia muslims, and other types such as Kurds. None of these countries are democratic by our standards, and probably cannot be. Remember, they kill each other in greater numbers than those who are killed by "us". Regularly, constantly. Iraq was a shit hole but now it is an even deeper hell hole.

So should we be hands off or support one dictatorship over another? Because that is exactly what is happening. If we had no intervention and they were at each others throats, then we can say they are just screwing themselves. However we have each side backed by major nations on each side. So along with the Sunni's and Shiites at each other, collectively on each side, we are NOT helping the situation.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

There's always a reason for things. Perhaps give an example where this has happened and I will give you my opinion.

Iran 1953.

[OftenWrong]

13 hours ago, GostHacked said:

So should we be hands off or support one dictatorship over another? Because that is exactly what is happening. If we had no intervention and they were at each others throats, then we can say they are just screwing themselves. However we have each side backed by major nations on each side. So along with the Sunni's and Shiites at each other, collectively on each side, we are NOT helping the situation.

It's not simple or straightforward. Global politics is a morass of intrigue, espionage and betrayal. We have enemies, and we have to make difficult choices. Sometimes there is no "good" choice, only the lesser of various possible evils. My answer to your question is we should do what is in our best interests, both short term and long term. When it comes to the ME, if we don't interfere then someone else will. Russia, China, The UK, France, everybody wants some. In many such cases the destabilization of a region is intentional, manipulated by an unseen hand.

[OftenWrong]

On 27/06/2017 at 10:12 AM, eyeball said:

Iran 1953.

See my post above re: manipulation of the region by outside powers. It was going to be controlled by the west, or by communists. No other option.

So Iran was a pawn caught up in the conflict of superpowers. And yet, Iran survived the coup and became more modern and culturally westernized under the pro-western Shah. That was finally the point of it, to bring it under western influence. Over time monarchical rule softened, the Shah did not have absolute power but shared some of his power with a parliament. Things were going the right way, towards a parliamentary monarchy but as an ally of the west. Had they been left to fall under communist control, I think the outcome would have been far worse.

Then, a third player stepped in. What happened next was the true catastrophe for Iran, NOT the coup of 1953.

Edited June 28, 2017 by OftenWrong
sp

[GostHacked]

On 6/25/2017 at 9:58 PM, Army Guy said:

SO what are you telling me here that i can not say i think she is a hero.....what is it that you did for your country again....what is it that makes you an expert on this topic...

I am not an expert, however I would take her own words over mine or yours.

[eyeball]

On 6/27/2017 at 7:42 PM, OftenWrong said:

See my post above re: manipulation of the region by outside powers. It was going to be controlled by the west, or by communists. No other option.

So Iran was a pawn caught up in the conflict of superpowers. And yet, Iran survived the coup and became more modern and culturally westernized under the pro-western Shah. That was finally the point of it, to bring it under western influence. Over time monarchical rule softened, the Shah did not have absolute power but shared some of his power with a parliament. Things were going the right way, towards a parliamentary monarchy but as an ally of the west. Had they been left to fall under communist control, I think the outcome would have been far worse.

Then, a third player stepped in. What happened next was the true catastrophe for Iran, NOT the coup of 1953.

How come the idea that communism and Russia has left us 'no other option' isn't clearly enunciated first and foremost in our foreign policies so that everyone understands that our principles and other people's innocent lives must be sacrificed for the betterment of all?  Is it it fair to say there is a great deep and unabiding shame for what its done that's preventing it to account for it?

As I explained earlier, the real catastrophe is the effect the coup and installation of a monster in 1953 had on us - it was the seminal point at which America's Beacon of Democracy changed into the Flaming Eye of Mordor. Its when America's embrace and support for more of the same and even worse unleashed the chaos that's now gripping much of the ME and surrounding region.

What America needs is someone with the strength and fortitude to force it to account for the terrible mistakes and crimes it has committed.  It needs to surrender and sue for peace, desperately.