Cambodia Expats Online: Forum | News | Information | Blog

Interesting John Pilger' article, some references to Cambodia. Looking forward to seeing his current project "The Coming War between America and China". Seems inevitable to me.


In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.

Linky:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol ... that-moves

Joker Poker wrote:Interesting John Pilger' article, some references to Cambodia. Looking forward to seeing his current project "The Coming War between America and China". Seems inevitable to me.


In transmitting President Richard Nixon's orders for a "massive" bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, "Anything that flies on everything that moves". As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger's murderous honesty.

Linky:

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol ... that-moves

.

John Pilger wrote:The only effective opponents of ISIS are accredited demons of the west - Syria, Iran, Hezbollah.

Pilger's solution seems to be "favor Shia Muslims over Sunnis, except for Turkey because they suck too". Sign a truce with and support Assad (Pilger says "Syria")? Is that what he is suggesting?

Soi Dog wrote:Fair enough, but when the US does take some military action against ISIS, who are currently committing atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Syria, that is also evil?

No.

But what is no longer being stated in the media (at least that I'm seeing) is that it's way past time for the Arabic countries to take the lead in putting the IS dogs down, and for the US to participate in that action rather than attempting to be Sole World Cop (f yeah) yet again.

There was a brief moment when the media was suggesting that for the Islamic nations to take no action was evidence of condoning/supporting IS. While this may have been overly simplistic and naive, that dialogue seems to have been silenced. Far more entertaining to make it about the US stance.

StroppyChops wrote:

Soi Dog wrote:Fair enough, but when the US does take some military action against ISIS, who are currently committing atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Syria, that is also evil?

No.

But what is no longer being stated in the media (at least that I'm seeing) is that it's way past time for the Arabic countries to take the lead in putting the IS dogs down, and for the US to participate in that action rather than attempting to be Sole World Cop (f yeah) yet again.

The US is always desperate for other, preferably local countries to step up and take the lead in such military actions. Who stepped up in Rwanda? Former colonial masters -Belgium? France? The EU? The African Union? The toothless UN? No. Nobody. Who stepped up in Kosovo/Serbia? Nobody (for years) until the US took control and forced NATO's hand.

But I take your point. I am all for the US completely turning it's back on the world and its problems, Chinese style. Let the slaughters continue unabated. Who gives a fiddler's fart?

StroppyChops wrote:

Soi Dog wrote:Fair enough, but when the US does take some military action against ISIS, who are currently committing atrocities against civilians in Iraq and Syria, that is also evil?

No.

But what is no longer being stated in the media (at least that I'm seeing) is that it's way past time for the Arabic countries to take the lead in putting the IS dogs down, and for the US to participate in that action rather than attempting to be Sole World Cop (f yeah) yet again.

There was a brief moment when the media was suggesting that for the Islamic nations to take no action was evidence of condoning/supporting IS. While this may have been overly simplistic and naive, that dialogue seems to have been silenced. Far more entertaining to make it about the US stance.

Would IS be in Iraq if Saddam was still around?

What should and can be done is one thing. What is the actual facts are another.

ISIS is in fact supported by Israel, E.U and the U.S. This can be traced right back to the Benghazi Cover up. ISIS are mostly Saudi nationals and handful from other various country by my est is 40%-50% from the Peninsula. The Money comes from U.A.E and Qatar.

So with that being said the U.S will sit back and watch and enjoy the fireworks. The only time you will expect to hear any war drums is if the Kurds cannot defend themselves.

Do we have amnesia and forget the war drums being pounded hard about the chemical weapons???? What a bullshit story that was...along wit MH11. Both done to try to get the U.S to go to war.

Yes we should be supporting Assad but thats not even on the table as a option...in fact its the opposite.

From my best calculations considering I have followed this war under a microscope. Is that ISIS will keep growing and will be knocking on Irans door. This is what the West wants....total Proxy. ALSO it may give Iran no choice but to go nuclear(God I hope not) But its a good excuse none the less.

Soi Dog wrote:But I take your point. I am all for the US completely turning it's back on the world and its problems, Chinese style. Let the slaughters continue unabated. Who gives a fiddler's fart?

Which could once again open the whole Pandora's Box of the US desperately, frantically needing to leave behind its sins in Vietnam/Cambodia (not to mention being late to the party at THE war) by playing World Cop - but for the sake of clarity let's just assume that I said yadda and then you said yadda, I came up with something witty, and was eventually labeled an Islamophobe.

I can't resist this, though - what's the count now of the US funding/arming/training it's 'friends' in other countries, only for those friends to become the despot?

StroppyChops wrote:I can't resist this, though - what's the count now of the US funding/arming/training it's 'friends' in other countries, only for those friends to become the despot?

I dunno. I assume you are mainly talking about the US arming Saddam in his war with Iran, which was a knee-jerk reaction of US Embassy staff being taken hostage. Then there is the billions each year in military aid given to Egypt under Mubarak, if he meets the qualifications of a despot. That policy was a convoluted agreement to help safeguard Israel. The US also armed many sides of civil wars, which was usually part of the cold war chess match with the USSR. All shameful and poorly thought-out policies, but which ones turned into despots? If you don't think the fight against Communism was a worthy cause then I won't be able to sway you. The US actions in Vietnam and surrounding countries turned into a complete fuck story carried out by liars and cowards in high office, and put a bloodstain on the entire country's hands that won't ever go away. No one really disputes that. I guess there are others you have in mind. Feel free to list them.

But the US also trained and militarily aided South Korea, to help them protect themselves from another North Korean invasion. They gave military aid and huge support to West Germany to stave off post-war Soviet militarism. They gave great aid to the Japanese since WW2, including militarily, to help prevent Chinese retribution and domination. They gave massive military aid to Churchill and Stalin during WW2 also. Was that a good policy considering the events of the time, even though Stalin was a well-known brutal psycho and definite despot? Was training and arming the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets a bad decision in 1980, knowing the events that were set in motion (ie 9/11)? Looks that way now, doesn't it? So do many decisions after the fact. You could help a desperate person defend and protect themselves today, and they may stab you tomorrow. Whose shame is that?

You make such decisions with the information and circumstances as you understand them at the time, not after the fact. Some of those decisions will eventually turn to shit and come back to haunt you. Some hopefully work out. I favor, and always have, the US staying out of all foreign military intervention. No world cop. Let the blood flow and do business with whoever wins, Chinese style.

Soi Dog wrote:... I won't be able to sway you.

No need, I actually agree with almost everything you post - it's just fun winding you up like a clockwork mouse.

StroppyChops wrote:

Soi Dog wrote:... I won't be able to sway you.

No need, I actually agree with almost everything you post - it's just fun winding you up like a clockwork mouse.

Not wound up. It's just an interesting topic.