Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 29, 2014

Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept: Nobody disputes the brutality and extremism of ISIS, but that is a completely different question from whether the U.S. should take military action against it. ... [W]hat are air strikes going to accomplish? All one has to do is look at the horrific chaos and misery in Libya -- the "Successful Humanitarian Intervention" -- to know that bombing Bad People out of existence accomplishes little in the way of strategic or humanitarian value. If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Zarathustra

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

It was not even a year ago when we were bombarded with messaging that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a Supreme Evil and Grave Threat, and that military action against his regime was both a moral and strategic imperative. ...

Now the Obama administration and American political class is celebrating the one-year anniversary of the failed "Bomb Assad!" campaign by starting a new campaign to bomb those fighting against Assad -- the very same side the U.S. has been arming over the last two years.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS, at least be honest enough to acknowledge what that will really require and then advocate that. Anything short of that is just self-glorifying deceit: donning the costume of Churchillian Resolve and Moral Purpose without any substance."

double-posting for, um, reading comprehension purposes, lmao

#1 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-27 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

mindlessly depicting ISIS as an unprecedented combination of military might and well-armed and well-funded savagery (where did they get those arms and funds?)

They got them out of thin air. Pretty much where all the Jihadist groups get their weapons based on how this government acts.

#2 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-08-27 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#3

Speaking of lying, there's one now.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 01:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. . . .

Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it. . . . [W]ar makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats.

The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. . .

Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state. . . . This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won't happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. . . .

The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to "defeat ISIL" that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.


-Brian Fishman

so, corky, since you have the pragmatism angle down cold, what, exactly, is it going to take? what are you willing to commit? you've been very vague on this point, probably on purpose. it'll just take a few dozen -- hundred? thousand? -- airstrikes?

let's hear the master plan, eh?

#5 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

power of nightmares -- bbc documentary on the rise of islamic extremism and neoconservatism part 1.

part 2

part 3

the obama team is taking a page out of the neocons' playbook in their approach to the middle east.

#6 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 08:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

He won't commit. 6 months from now? He'll deny he was for it. the body count doesn't matter in their world. people are just pawns in a global board-game.

#7 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-28 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hope and Change.

#8 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-08-28 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#5 |you've been very vague on this point, probably on purpose

You appear to be wrong yet again.

A "few missile strikes" in my post referred to the missile strikes we already made that helped stop a genocide... nothing else.

If we can provide air support for the Kurds and for the 280-something thousand poor excuse for an Iraqi army, that's fine by me, but not lots of boots on the ground.

POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-08-27 09:20 PM"

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 12:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Refer to my other post" is an evasive non-answer, corky.

At least the republican neocons were up front and honest about their foreign policy delusions. The obama neocons are despicable, craven little weasels.

#10 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#10

What's your problem, bud?

You said I had been vague on the subject, and now you squeal like a stuck pig when I show you that I have not.

You are certainly no George McGovern, lmao.

www.drudge.com

www.theatlantic.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 01:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You are certainly no George McGovern, lmao."

Hillary Clinton is no McGovern, that's for sure.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12

Hillary on the brain.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 01:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#12...she might be given the right pant suit.

#14 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-28 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

George McGovern: Come home, America.

Hillary Clinton: World domination is the "indispensable nation" America's sacred duty.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

"a few airstrikes"...

"not lots of boots on the ground"...

does anyone other than corky think this isn't being incredibly vague?

it's not "squealing like a stuck pig" to try to figure out what you have in mind. Getting a genuine answer seems to be like squeezing water from a stone, though.

But, I understand where you're coming from. I really do. You cannot commit to anything more specific than "a few" of this and "not a lot" of that because we all know that if and when obama decides to put a significant force on the ground, it would put you in a really difficult situation.

#16 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

while we're on the topic of IS, maybe we should just sit them down and give a really rousing oration that does a fantastic job of "telling our story".

I'm sure they'll come around in a second after that!

#17 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"does anyone other than corky think this isn't being incredibly vague?"

No.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 01:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16

Like I said, no George McGovern... you know, someone who could discern the difference between US action in Vietnam v Cambodia.... or Iraq v ISIS, for that matter.

-when obama decides to put a significant force on the ground,

You mean when monkeys fly?

Got it.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

This guy has George McGovern on the brain, even though McGovern would never endorse neocon warmongering. "Come home, America".

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15

Oh, let's use real quotes instead of your lame fake ones....

"Do we sit on the sidelines and watch an entire people be slaughtered or do we marshal military forces and move in quietly to put an end to it?"

John McCain? Joe Lieberman? Scoop Jackson? Wrong. The speaker was George McGovern, in August 1978."

www.theatlantic.com

Now, you can keep whining about that quote and about the premise set forth in the article, or you can make a substantive argument against it.

Any bets on which it will be?

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 02:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

you're misrepresenting me in your #19, corky.

"if and when obama decides to put a significant force on the ground..."

I noticed you omitted the "if". You love to accuse others of needing remediation for their poor reading skills. Is this a case of you needing those same remediations, or are you intentionally misrepresenting me?

And, why do you keep deflecting to George McGovern? What's he got to do with anything, other than being your current favorite copypasta spam?

Sorry, but you don't come across as someone who wants to have a discussion in good faith; you just seem to want to "be right" about this because it's your guy calling the shots now.

Very much like a neocon in that respect.

#22 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 02:12 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#21 Spam

#23 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-28 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#22

Sorry, but you don't come across as someone who has an argument to McGovern's argument.

And, btw, the 1 percenters must really appreciate you Puritopians watering down the term "neocon" by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you 100 percent that.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Sorry, but you don't come across as someone who has an argument to McGovern's argument."

McGovern's argument is anti-war, not pro-neocon.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-08-28 02:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

And, why do you keep deflecting to George McGovern?

If you can find an anti-war candidate who opposed Vietnam and take away context from a quote in 78, then you can distract the ADHD afflicted from their point.

WOrks almost everytime. How else do you hijack a thread you don't want talked about?

#26 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-28 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

hey corky, as long as we're calling out others to address the premise in the article (following your #21), I'd like you to reconcile the above-quoted passage from Fishman with your policy prescription that "a few airstrikes" and "not many" boots on the ground will make everything hunky-dory again. Thanks.

#27 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

you Puritopians watering down the term "neocon" by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you 100 percent that.

#24 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-08-28 02:16 PM

Definition of NEOCONSERVATIVE

1
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism

www.merriam-webster.com

Nothing watered down.

#28 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-28 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#26 | Posted by kanrei

yep, pretty much.

corky apes some of the best trolls out there, although I hope nobody's paying him; he's not very good at it.

www.washingtonsblog.com

Keep this list in mind because he's not the only one here who uses these tactics to derail threads.

I see clear examples of #s 8, 17, and 18 already here.

#29 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2014-08-28 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#27

You get to go first, deary.

And still no argument I see.... just whining about derailing a thread about ISIS by bringing up an article about... ISIS.

- Any bets on which it will be?

#21 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2014-08-28 02:03 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

No one dumb enough to bet on that one, I see.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-28 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#6 | POSTED BY ZARATHUSTRA

Good videos for a historical snapshot. well done.

#31 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-28 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

When Corky says 'few or not many' he means that whatever eventually happens is exactly what he said. Except of course when it all blows up, then you're a liar for claiming he supported it.

Corky is like the "Plan B" squad from the video.

#32 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-28 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

-a liar

Your extreme symptoms appear to be genetically-based, actually.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-29 12:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Other than post a link to an article or quotes from 30 years ago, you seem unwilling or incapable of rationally discussing your position. Your only comments are attacks, name calling, or 'tag your it' games.

So why don't you just blurt out what you want? What exactly do you want to see accomplished and how many dead/wounded are acceptable to achieve your goals?

#34 | Posted by DeadSpin at 2014-08-29 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Consider what Hitler's bombing did to British resolve. Consider that US bombing of Germany during WWII had zero impact on war production as confirmed by a detailed study conducted by Galbraithe. Bombing softens a target and mostly destroys innocent civilians and their infrastructure, the same people that ISIS is killing. ISIS will come back as surely as the Taliban. Our policies are a proven failure, yet we keep repeating it over and over again. All because of our determination to control the world's economy and oil supply. Pretty evil failed objectives.

#35 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-08-29 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Basically the American empire is practicing the same type of fascist imperialism that the colonial powers used to employ.

1. Invade sovereign nations, commit mass murder. torture, rape, pillage, and steal their resources to pay for it.

2. When it becomes too expensive to keep large armies in the region, arm everyone and coerce them into murdering each other, while continuing above.

3. Leave when resources are exhausted(oil runs out).

But the USSA is a democracy!!!

Don't let the TERRORISTS win!!!

Both parties support this.

No difference what so ever.

None.

#36 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-29 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

If you like running around sermonizing on the need to destroy ISIS

There is no need to destroy ISIS; just drive them back into Syria. With all of the American weapons that they have captured from the Iraqis, they should be able to give Assad a real fight. Whomever wins, Assad or ISIS, will be in such a weakened state, that moderate Syrians (with a little help from their friends) should be able to "waltz" in and take control.

#37 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2014-08-29 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

The moderates are dead. Isis is owning the Syrians and getting stronger from it not weaker.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-08-30 08:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort