Folks, I don't know too much about the site Storm Clouds Gathering. But
when an article is full of links to articles by different sources it
doesn't matter what their viewpoint is. Even the NYT is generlly a good source
for facts, just not always for opinions.
This article contains about a a half dozen articles from the NYT, one from
BBC, one from the Independent, and a number of others, one a lefty.
Some people keep telling me I am sending links to articles by sites they
don't approve of and tell me that is harmful to my reputation. What reputation,
I ask? I am not a professional journalist. Who pays me? I just love my country
and hate my government, and that is all. But I don't make it a habit of sending
links to lefty sites, and when I do, it's because I know the story and the
details from other sources.
Look, if a leftist news site says that John McCain is meeting with
terrorists, then don't tell me that's not true just because a lefty site said it
is, ok? That's juvenile and annoying.
Some people are going only to conservative sites because they only trust
them. Yet the articles linked in these sites are to mainstream sites or leftwing
sites.
Do we have to run our news thru a rightwing filter each time? Are we
incapable of forming an opinion purely from facts or do we need a baby sitter. I
know I don't.
If a lefty says John McCain is a warmonger, does that mean he is not? Does
that make McCain a good American patriot like you and me? Or if a lefty says
Bush was for amnesty, does that mean he was for border control and a
fence?
The thing is, I send out links that are sent to me. Now, if I think the
site in question is anti-Jewish, I don't send it (not knowingly anyway). But
if you know a site is a lefty site and it contains facts
that you know are facts, why not just read it for the facts and ignore the
viewpoint?
We aren't twelve years old, ok?
These purists remind me of when I was a kid in the 5 and dime and some lady
said to her kid 'don't touch this merchandise, a black person might have touched
it.' And without blinking, the kid looked up and said 'It doesn't rub off,
mom.'
That holds true for news too. If you are reasonably intelligent and you
read for content only, it won't rub off. Honest, Mom.
Don hank
The Fall of Iraq - What You're Not Being Told
Iraq
is descending into chaos, but not for the reasons you're being fed by the
politicians and the mainstream media.
In
June of 2014 the world watched in shock as an Islamic militant group
operating under the name of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS),
took control of Mosul, Baiji and Tikrit and began pushing south to
Baghdad. Fallujah has been under their control since January.
[Note
they are also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or
ISIL]
Iraqi
military and police put up very little resistance in spite of the fact
that they greatly outnumbered the militants. Most fled their posts and
left their uniforms and weapons behind, those who didn't were killed.
ISIS,
whose stated goal is to erase the border between Syria and Iraq, to
establish an Islamic Caliphate encompassing both countries, and to impose
sharia law, already holds vast swaths of territory, and they are rapidly
gaining ground.
How
did this happen?
That's
an extremely important question. How you answer it will determine what
comes next, and not just in Iraq. That's why the media spin doctors and
politicians are out in force attempting to rewrite history, and turning
reality completely on its head in the process.
For
example we have people insisting this is happening because the
U.S. And NATO failed to intervene in Syria.
Well
that's a convenient answer isn't it?
The
U.S. And NATO have been actively working to topple Assad by arming and
funding the Syrian rebels since 2011. This has developed into a bloody
civil war which has attracted Jihadists from all over the world. It has
also created a vacuum of power which enabled groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda
and Al-Nusra to organize and establish physical strongholds.
The
U.S. Claims to only be arming the "moderate" rebels, however, the
leadership of the Free Syrian Army (aka the FSA) has stated that they regularly carry out joint operations with Al-Qaeda and
its affiliates. Up
until recently ISIS was a branch of Al-Qaeda. In February of this year
Al-Qaeda's official leadership publicly disavowed ISIS due to their brutal
tactics. That's why ISIS is referred to as a splinter group. Furthermore,
we know for a fact that the majority of the weapons and funding from the
U.S. And its allies are ending up in the hands of Jihadists, and U.S.
Officials have been aware of this since 2012. But don't take my word for
it, go read this article from the New York Timesyourself.
Do
the math folks. ISIS would have never gotten a foothold Syria if the U.S.
Hadn't weakened the Syrian government, and the weapons they are using
right now... Were most likely paid for with your tax dollars.
But
wait, this isn't just about Syria is it? It's also about Iraq. Which
brings us to the other deranged narrative that is being promoted right now: that this chaos is
unfolding because U.S. Military withdrew prematurely in 2011.
You
see Iraq is in ruins and unable to defend itself, because the U.S.
Military left the party too early. It's not because the Bush
administration and the mainstream media convinced the public that Saddam
had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. It's not
because the U.S. Invaded Iraq on these false pretenses, disbanding
the Iraqi army and police, and reducing the country to
rubble in an attempt to put down the resulting insurgency. No, it's
because eight years of military occupation wasn't enough.
To
those who fought there, it's a punch in the gut to see your sacrifice was
for nothing, but the occupation of Iraq was never going to end well, and
the Bush administration knew that it wouldn't. But don't take my word for
it. Let's take a look at this clip of Dick Cheney from 1994.
That
was very astute Dick. You accurately predicted the mess you were going to
help create in 2003. I would even venture to say that your predictions
were more accurate than those who warned against this adventure. I'm
impressed.
Now
you'll notice that the talking heads of the left and the right are all
trying to frame this crisis as the fault of the other side. They're both
right.
Both
sides of the aisle have blood on their hands, and this goes way beyond
Bush and Obama. The United States has been tinkering in Iraq for a long,
long time. In fact it was the CIA that put Saddam Hussein in power in
1963. Don't take my word for it, go read this article from the New York Times.
The
U.S. Government also backed Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of
aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical
weapons. But again don't take my word for it, go read this article by Foreign Policy magazine.
Fast
forward to 1990. Saddam Hussein was embroiled in a dispute with Kuwait
over oil prices and borders and he was considering taking action. Given
America's support in the war against Iran, Saddam had no reason to believe
that Kuwait would be any different, but just to be sure, he decided to
consult with Washington first.
On
July 25th of 1990 U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Saddam
Hussein. In the meeting Saddam described his case against Kuwait and told
Glaspie that he viewed their activities as an act of military aggression.
Glaspie responded by saying "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab
conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", and she reinforced
this by saying "this issue is not associated with America" Naturally
Saddam interpreted this as a green light, and eight days later he
invaded.
Later,
when questioned in hearings, Glaspie claimed that though this quote was
accurate, she had followed it up by insisting that Iraq settle its dispute
non-violently.
However
that's not what shows up in the transcripts of the conversation released by the New York
Times. According to
the transcript she said "All that we hope is that these issues are solved
quickly."
But
maybe this was just an innocent diplomatic blunder right? Well not
quite.
As
soon as Saddam entered Kuwait the U.S. government launched a very
interesting propaganda campaign to build up public support for a war. They
claimed that Iraqi troops were slaughtering little babies by throwing them
out of their incubators in hospitals, and they brought in teary eyed
witnesses who testified to having seen the massacres.
Just
one problem. the entire event was fabricated. It never happened. This
woman who presented herself as a witness was actually the daughter of the
Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and her testimony was part of a
public relations campaign organized by a company called Hill and
Knowlton.
Once
public support for the war was strong, the incubators story was dropped,
and never mentioned again.
The
U.S. invaded Iraq in 1991. During that war the U.S. military utilized
approximately 640,000 pounds of Depleted Uranium ammunition. The Iraq was
decimated, but the U.S. left Saddam in power.
The
war didn't ever really end though. The U.S. kept Iraq under a draconian sanctions regime that
resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Clinton kept
those sanctions in place for the entire duration of his presidency, and
they knew what was happening.
You
know how they say "those who don't know history are destined to repeat
it"? That's really not an exaggeration.
Fast
forward to 2003 and the Kuwaiti incubator story was swapped out for
stories of mobile missile silos and yellow cake uranium.
And
when it turned out that those weapons of mass destruction didn't
exist, they
acted like it was no big deal.
Then
of course came Obama, riding in on promises of hope and change. But we saw
how Obama toppled Libya in 2011, leaving
that nation in utter chaos. Gaddafi was then killed in a rather gruesome fashion.
Before
NATO brought down Gaddafi Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa. Now it's a perpetual war-zone.
And of course we've seen how Obama has funded and armed the Syrian rebels
in an attempt to bring down Assad.
Obama
is operating from the same playbook, and yes there is a playbook.
Fortunately
the future is not set in stone. We can influence the outcome, and we
already are. We proved that in 2013 when both the left and the right
dropped their petty bickering and unified against Obama's proposal to use airstrikes against Assad.
The
pattern of deceit was the same, but this time the people didn't fall for
it. The fact that we had the U.N. investigator Carla Del Ponte come out to
say that the Syrian
rebels were behind the sarin gas attacks helped, the
fact that Putin short circuited the U.S. diplomatically helped,
but the determining factor was the popular resistance, particularly the
signs of discontent from within the military. You see, the ruling class is
very hesitant to take a nation to war if the people and the military
strongly oppose it. That's why the first casualty of war is always the
truth.
What's
going on in Iraq right now is horrific. ISIS is already committing
atrocities against civilians on a massive scale. Inexplicably the Obama
administration did not provide the Iraqi military with immediate air
support even after the fall of Mosul. I say inexplicably, not because I
support airstrikes, but because on June 12th, the U.S. Military conducted its second drone
strike this month in Pakistan. Why would Obama refuse to act
in Iraq when civilians are being massacred, while employing drones in
Pakistan without hesitation?
I'll
tell you why. Because the outrage over the atrocities that the ISIS is
committing may be enough to provide the U.S. government with a backdoor
into Syria.
You
see It turns out that Obama is considering airstrikes, but not just in
Iraq. He wants to extend those strikes into Syria as
well. Well, that's
convenient isn't it? Once the U.S. military is able to freely conduct
operations in Syrian territory getting the regime change that they will be
much, much easier.
It's
the classic formula Problem, Reaction, Solution.
They
created the problem, they are letting the public react and build up
outrage, and then they are going to propose a "solution" that will sow the
seeds for another generation of conflicts.
To
short circuit this pattern the public needs to come to terms with the cold
hold hard truth.
No
matter what the U.S. does, and no matter how long they stay, there is no
happy ending to this story. The chaos that we're seeing in this region is
the direct result of half a century of U.S. military interventions and
covert operations in the Middle East. It's time to acknowledge that
bombing for peace doesn't work, regime change for stability doesn't work,
and you can't fix a mistake by repeating it over and over.
If
the U.S. honestly wants to stop the spread of Islamic terrorism, then they
should stop funding and arming Jihadists in Syria. That would be a good
starting point don't you think?
If
you want to keep informed about what's going on in the world be sure
to sign
up for email updates here. You can also subscribe to StormCloudsGathering on Youtube or
follow StormCloudsGathering and SCG News on Facebook, Twitter, and Google
plus.
No comments:
Post a Comment