This week Secretary of State John Kerry became the Sham-Wow man for the latest war by the United States. Here is how a Sham-War pitch works. Kerry announced that the Arab countries will pay for our entire war if we invade Syria. That’s right, we can simply rent out U.S. personnel like mercenaries for Saudi Arabia and Gulf nations. First we have Nancy Pelosi explaining the war literally in five-year-old terms and now John Kerry doing his imitation of Offer “Vince” Shlomi.
Kerry told Congress that “With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes. . . . They have. That offer is on the table.” When Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) pressed on how much we could get from the countries, Kerry said it was an absolute bargain: “In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost . . . That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.”
Note the reference to “go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places.” That is the new way to refer to an invasion as in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clear suggestion is that we might be able to go to war on a Saudi credit card . . . if we act now. Indeed, as Congress contemplates whether it would buy a war for zero down, Kerry could offer to get a second war at the same cost.
What is astonishing is that the offer of a free war was viewed as Kerry as a positive contribution to the pitch for war. Many people have already criticized the United States for engaging in such operations at the behest of either the Saudis or the Israelis at the cost of U.S. lives and treasure. Even Offer “Vince” Shlomi would blush at the pitch of a war that is too good a deal to pass up.
Source: Washington Post
Bron,
Not knowing the meanings of words and making them up is only second to not understanding them in the proper context. At least you didn’t make up a definition this time.
All governments are statist.
It’s their nature.
They share an etymological root for that reason.
Any form of legal system is a form of centralized control. it’s a matter of degree and where that control is located. That’s why we have specialized terms in poli sci like “totalitarian” and “anarchist” at the extremes and a bunch of terms inbetween. Our government as founded was statist at the Federal level as it was founded as a federation – a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states united by a central government – hence the name “Federal government”. The member states, however, as as statist as any Constitutional democracy.
Did you really think I didn’t know the dictionary definition of “statism”?
Please.
Unfortunately, unlike Rand, I understand it within the context of political science as a whole. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is the applied synthesis of information and context to form understanding.
But you know this.
Or you should by now.
MM,
🙂
That’s funny!
Obama gets pissed at people like Oky1 for calling on congress to impeach his butt so he threatens us by telling the world he’s going to throw the US’s economy over the cliff & into a deeper depression by ending QE 4ever.
Go ahead Obama, we already know you hate American’s guts, pull the trigger.
What are you going to do Obama, attack another city like you likely did in Boston or will it be bigger this time?
The 2 things he will never do is going looking for the road back to Mayberry & bring Wallst/City of London major Banks/Insur corporations to Justice!!!
** *OBAMA TOLD G-20 STIMULUS WILL BE WITHDRAWN GRADUALLY: RUSSIA
It would seem, the President has decided the decision to taper – gradually – will be his, which is odd, because – as if one needed reminding – the decision is not his to make (unless he decided to nominate himself for Fed chair?). **
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-05/did-obama-just-appoint-himself-fed-chair
President Obama gambling with war reminds me of a favorite scene in The Count of Monte Cristo (Kevin Reynold’s film) where the dissolute aristocrat Fernand de Mondego sits at the roulette table squandering his family inheritance. Through an open doorway, Edmond Dantes and his sidekick Jacopo look on. Observes Jacopo:
“He’s losing. And they’re not even cheating him.”
President Obama has gotten into a game of craps with himself, using an especially designed pair of dice that always comes up snake-eyes. As military historian Martin Van Crevald has written, when the strong beat down on the weak and win, they look like thugs. When they beat down on the weak and lose, they look like idiots (Vietnam, Iraq, an Afghanistan). Snake-eyes, either way. Great nations cannot fight little wars, but failed states like the U.S.A. often think that they can.
from OED:
statism
Pronunciation: /ˈsteɪtɪz(ə)m/
noun
[mass noun]
a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs
From Rand:
“the term “statism” designates concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual liberty. . .”
So “statism” is about central control by governments. Statist does not mean a government of limited powers, it specifically refers to ones in which government subordinates the will of the individual to its own ends. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are examples of the worst of statism. Czarist Russia would be a weaker statist country.
Our government, as founded, was not statist.
There is no such thing as a free
lunchwar.*sigh*
Once again, Rand displays all the nuance of a hammer and the proper understanding of political science one would expect from a throw pillow.
All forms of government are statist in that they influence control over social and economic affairs. The difference is one of degree. The proper term for what is going on here is “imperialism”: policy of extending a country’s power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means.
And that problem traces directly back to the Congress essentially abandoned its Constitutional duty to check the power of the Executive in declaring war by overriding Nixon’s veto of the War Powers Act of 1973.
rafflaw,
I spent a fair amount of time yesterday/recently calling Congressmen/Senators offices.
I say to them almost word for word things I post here.
IE: Don’t get involved in Syria, don’t violating our 2nd, 4th amd or any other Rights, Obama, like Bush, Clinton is/are war criminals/crimes against humanity, Obamacare is an unconstitutional Scam, Wallst Banks/insur are totally corrupt & a direct threat to Natl. Seecurity, etc….
That if they don’t have enough votes to Impeach Obama & all of his mafia crew at the very least hold a vote of No Confidence against them.
But I was pumping them mainly this video below, 12.4 minutes it explains the real war we all have to & should be fighting right now.
Money or call it currency, securities, even fraudulent securities & commodities like electric power, oil, gold, silver etc all share many aspects in common.
They all can be used as tools for control to maintain leaders Political Power that control them.
For this war to be won people need to understand the problem & then they have to act to put an end to the monopoly controls of currencies & to end Wallst use of fraudulent derivatives.
We are all in this war whether we wish to be or not.
(I posted it on another thread yesterday it may have shown up as spam when I just reposted it. You can find it with the info below if you wish.)
Youtube: Take Your Money Out of the Bank!
Amen, Bron, Amen.
John Kerry, war whore, forevermore. Let him go be “the last one leaving.”
Just go home to Frau Heinz and play with your windsurfer, oh ye so far removed from the resultant crimes of the State. Sick, sick, sick.
“Remember that private citizens—whether rich or poor, whether businessmen or workers—have no power to start a war. That power is the exclusive prerogative of a government. Which type of government is more likely to plunge a country into war: a government of limited powers, bound by constitutional restrictions—or an unlimited government, open to the pressure of any group with warlike interests or ideologies, a government able to command armies to march at the whim of a single chief executive?”
Ayn Rand
“Statism—in fact and in principle—is nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own country’s economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.”
Ayn Rand
“First we have Nancy Pelosi explaining the war literally in five-year-old terms and now John Kerry doing his imitation of Offer “Vince” Shlomi.” -JT
Hebrew National was so excited they offered Free Willie! and Free Weiner! coupons.
Next week it is Pancy Nelosi smothered with Agent Orange Boehner sauce.
Report: China Sends Warships to Coast of Syria
PLA dispatches vessels to “observe” US maneuvers
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 5, 2013
China has reportedly sent warships to the coast of Syria to “observe” the actions of US and Russian ships as tensions build in preparation for a potential military strike on Syria which could come as soon as next week.
U.S. resolution on Syria strike passes first hurdle in Senate | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/…/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130904
14 hours ago – Putin presses US Congress over Syria, says Kerry lied. 04 Sep …. “Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” Putin said.
Posted on Thursday, September 5, 2013
Russia says it’s compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.UiipY9JJHni#storylink=cpy
More insanity! What is so absolutely shameful about it is that it comes as no surprise.
Oops:
And yes the Saudi/Qatar/Israel/US funded trained Free Syrian Army is mostly Al Qaedia, Multiple reports decades back show Al Qaedia, AKA Al CIAduh, is/has been being run by billionaires inside/in control of the US/Saudis/Israel govts.
rafflaw,
Maybe I’m wrong or naive, but I now look at these national govts as tools being used by billionaires that are nothing more then modern day mafia bosses.
We have the Koch brothers, Buffet, Gates, etc., the Saudis have their Bandars, bin Ladens, etc., Russia….
Most of the people of the world a meaningless & nothing more then slaves/cannon fodder to the worlds billionaires.
About 10-20% of the gen pop of the major player nations, those people are paid $60-$300,000 year, a small pittance, for maintaining the status quo of the billionaire’s control of their territories.
I believe Syria is nothing more then billionaires fighting with each other over turf.
My position is to say screw all of them.
Leaving Assad in power leaves a wall in place blocking further trouble in that area.
Which in turn is the most helpful to all of us in the US.
Keep in mind there’s around 100 million Americans that could working, but instead are currently sitting on their thumbs & the other 100 mil jobs exist because of some sort of govt welfare/subsidy.
(Can people Fathom the shear scope of the numbers? There should be riots in the streets against the Wallst/City of London Banking types! )
I don’t believe Russia or China can or will surrender that spot on the map.
And yes, multiple reports decades back show Al Qaedia, AKA Al CIAduh, is/has been being run by billionaires inside/in control of the US/Saudis/Israel govts.
White House working hard to woo House liberals on Syria
By Greg Sargent, Published: September 4 at 2:54 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/04/white-house-working-hard-to-woo-house-liberals-on-syria/
Excerpt:
Dem Rep. Barbara Lee of California, a staunch opponent of military action, tells me that the exchange between members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and White House officials was “frank” and “forthright” and “candid” on both sides, with “very tough questions” coming from progressive Dems.
Rep. Lee, for instance, says she pressed White House officials on this question: “Even the administration agrees there’s no military solution and there can only be a negotiated settlement, so how does the use of force and strikes move us in that direction?” She also pressed for answers on how we can “mitigate” against “collateral damage” and on “the possibility of a regional conflict breaking out.”
“They assured us they’re taking everything into account,” Lee said. “I do have to say the president and this administration have been very careful and very methodical in how they’ve been approaching this.”
Others on the call pressed for answers about whether more international support would be forthcoming.
Lee, however, says she remains unpersuaded. “They’ve been very persuasive about the intelligence and the fact that we must do something,” Lee says. “They were not persuasive for me that the only option right now is a military option.” She added that on the question of whether strikes “will put Assad in check, I’m just not persuaded that’s the case.”
This, ultimately, may be the dilemma the White House faces in a nutshell. Virtually all of the Dems the White House wants to win over agree the case against Assad is strong, and that doing nothing is unacceptable. That argument has been made successfully. But many Dems still are not persuaded that military violence will change the situation for the better and seem to believe the risks of strikes, even limited ones, outweigh the potential upsides, whatever they are supposed to be.
However, Lee did say other progressives on the call seemed to still be in a questioning mode. The White House still could conceivably prevail, given that many Dems who harbor a liberal internationalist streak seemingly remain deeply uncomfortable with inaction in the face of Assad’s horrors.
“They’re working very hard,” Lee said of the White House. “That’s what coming to Congress is all about.”
Barbara Lee is rather ignorant if she cannot understand how stopping Assad using chemical weapons will advance a negotiation. If Assad is allowed to continuing using that weapon, then negotiations are pointless since the opposition will not exist. DUH!