Quite a lively discussion on rationality and irrationality. US policy is driven by irrational belief. Then it uses rational methods to implement its policy. I think Irene Caesar is correct that the ruling world elites are largely khazars who are genetically programmed for violence. This is the irrational unconscious.
As is the case today, irrationality sometimes results with “the engineer being hoisted by his own petard.”
And let us not allow people to forget that 9/11 was a khazar inside job IMO. Certain esteemed liberals who shall be nameless here cannot come clean about 9/11 for fear the populace will realize that Israel was largely responsible for the biggest terrorist attack of all which started the crazy war on terror. Then all hell would break loose for the AZs. Now the terror tactic is turning on its perpetrators despite efforts to cloak it.
Watch the language change from terrorist to moderate terrorist to freedom fighters. If we buy that we’re dumber than I thought.
Justice is very real although sometimes slow to come around either here or hereafter.
Yes, indeed. I agree with the qualification that God himself is subject to the higher justice administered by Love. I know I’m touching a sensitive nerve but I must be wary of justice in my own case. It’s not just a matter of semantics for me. Words are powerful energizers one way or the other. I’ve got to be careful how I use them.
This not the place to elaborate on that theme. For those so inclined, see the end of comments on the Nasrallah thread or thelovegovernment.com.
Lavelle and the lady would not let the gentleman finish a thought; and he, not they, was correct: the U.S. policy in the Middle East is perfectly rational. It is in the interest of the U.S. and its allies – Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel – that there be failed states in the Middle East. It is an evil policy, but it is perfectly rational.
Yeah I kept thinking that the whole time. Why was it hard for anyone of them to say that America is pure f** evil. A cold calculating pure evil. But of course that doesn’t mean that they will succeed with their designs in the long run. Nevertheless in their view it is rational and at the moment they seem to be succeeding… on one hand. But on the other hand whenever US doesn’t achieve its stated goals it declares it won and packs things up. So I’m a bit confused.
No, it is not rational, it is irrational. It is very simple. These same policies have been tried over and over through previous decades. Failure after failure. The areas fall out of the grip of the US. And so at best they get a Pyrrhic victor of creating a failed state, which they subsequently lose. The only real victory that could be achieved by those approaches would require simultaneous suppression of the development of all the other countries of the region and the world. By focusing attention on creating failed states, they lose the lead in industrialization and economic power, which leads to the loss of these areas they have worked to destabilize. It is irrational because they have lost the initiative in the real power sphere, which means that these creations of failed states are petty victories, which they will subsequently lose.
And Russia, by the way, is an example of just such a state. In the 90’s Russia was on the ropes, and firmly in the grip of the west, very destabilized by Atlantic leaning forces. Not a failed state, but approaching the level of destabilization, that fits into the picture the man was talking about. It was like a war was going on there. Look at it now. The US has very little chance now of getting Russia in its grip again, like back in the 90’s. Sure, the Atlantic leaning powers are still there, but they have serious opposition now, and they don’t have the levers of state power.
Creating failed states does not turn out they way the man would want.
100% agree.
It is a Machiavellian strategy .. and only a ‘failure’ interpreted through a moral prism or expectation on the ‘democracy replacing Evil Dictators blah blah’ complete rubbish sales pitch for the wars.
There was NO failure in Iraq.
Stage 1 was Gulf Wars & Sanctions to weaken before invasion & occupation;
Stage 2 was Shock and Awe with DELIBERATE installing sectarian constitution, DELIBERATE refusal of Saddam’s military & govt workers any employment …. leaving al CIAda free to hire and arm them in preparation for
Stage 3 – unleashing of IS on Syria and then Iraq – who were DELBERATELY left with no air cover (and as per recent WikiLeaks – Israel and Maliki connived to get rid of pilots),
Stage 4 fragmenting Sy-raq into small weak warring sectarian statelets …. both depopulated and ‘brain drained’ by wars and refugee exodus ….. as indicated in Peter / Wolfowitz / Oded Yinon plans … many a map presented of the plan in NYT even.
– fragmented meaning all the easier for colonisation and control… and all wanting arms sales …..
And Syria not able to support Hezbollah to give IDF a bloody nose next time they invade Lebanon to annex more land, or grab more than Golan Hts , nor Iran – still on the cards possible war / regime change there.
Libya was not a ‘failure’ by Machiavellian objectives :
– The gold and cash heisted, the African Bank and gold dinar stopped; France got the Aquifer project … and AngloZioNATO control Libya – which ‘sandwiches’ Egypt in any future war to grab “From the Nile…” part of Eretz Israel / Pax Judaica colonisation plan.
– Still useful anarchy operating as an al CIAda jihadi and arms clearing cesspool established for Boko Haram paving the way to AFRICOM operations of subsequent neoColonisation wars raging across North Africa … justifying more military bases, arms and sale of security services as the Anglohadis rush off to “save 270 girls” (from their oil, coltan, uranium and Chinese investment in old fashioned win-win trade deals)
AngloZio Empires “Divide and Ruin” strategy has been Machiavellian in the extreme – but quite successful in achieving the step by step objectives.
Can / Will Russia keep Syria intact in forthcoming negotiations remains to be seen.
Iraq-Kurdistan split off and already has IDF military bases ..
US courting Syrian Kurds – to create and co-join into a larger Israeli friendly Kurdistan?
Will Saudi get it’s Sunnistan spanning Syria-Iraq and bordering Iran for the March on Tehran?
Will Israel get Golan Heights and grab extra ‘Druzestan’?
Thank you DeeCT. I’ve always thought that banking/money/$ interests were a major reason for the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria and banking is the big reason Iran is our big enemy. If the western banking interests can’t control them through loans with interest, then they are a threat to US/Israel hegemony. If there is any truth to this, then the wars are VERY RATIONAL from western banker’s point of view. I don’t think Peter Lavelle ever understood that there could be a rational for creating a failed state. He is one of the best but “there could be a rational reason to create a failed state” went right by him.
Crosstalk regularly argues about US stupidity or mistakes, but tends to avoid the idea that these are simply evil policies that often work, but sometimes don’t. America may have failed to get much of what they wanted in the Ukraine, but they got a certain amount. Other countries may have turned out better. Libya and Somalia, for example. Islamic terrorism is a tremendous positive for the US. It harms enemies, such as Russia and China, and allows the US to decide what areas get destabilized, thus pressuring countries to obey the US. What is not to like about it? Brzezinski said something along the lines of “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
So what matters now? Some stirred-up Muslims or the crushing of anti-US/Israel or pro-Russian regimes in the Middle East?
Unfortunately, US policy is rational – but mostly only for them. If you are running a state in which a very significant portion of work and income are generated by the military industrial and security complex, you will be strongly incited to use their products in order to produce more. Mere renewal from time to time is by far insufficient to consume the output of the US weapons manufacturers.
Hence, perpetual wars in foreign countries for the mere sake of domestic profit is the goal, because it is the life support the global and in particular the US weapons industry needs. Add to that the notion that certain elites would like to reduce the global human population by 80% to 90%. I am in favor of a population reduction but by peaceful means: somewhat less births than natural deaths reducing population by 1% to 2% a year. However, some people prefer the violent alternative by ignoring the experience that failed states tend to perpetuate excessive reproduction. Which closes the circle for more violent conflicts.
As a consequence, anyone who wants change for the better should interrogate himself/herself honestly, if what he/she is doing serves a healthy purpose. If not, stop doing it and stop it now!
US policy is a mess for a lot of reasons.
1. It is not Machiavellian – it is opportunistic – that is the US is ungovernable top down by a President because of the Senate, Congress and the press. There are three ways of making things happen:
a) by doing it in secret (a lot of foreign policy is done that way) and lying about it.
b) do things that would lose votes for anyone who argued against it (and present it/lie about it to make it look that way)
c) by creating events (provocation or lies about actual events) that push public opinion the way they want it to go (so in Ukraine the attempt has been to prove Russian Intervention hence the lies on Russian Presence in E Ukraine, the provocation of shelling civilians 30km from the Russian boarder – how gutsy has Putin been to not react to that – and the false twisting of evidence over MH17).
So there are things that can be done – torture, Drones, regime change and things that can’t be done (gun laws) which are due to the way democracy works in the US, not because ordinary Americans re particularly violent.
2. Anti-Terrorism is such a massive influence on everything in the US and the various bits of the administration that independently decide which opportunities to take have all taken advantage of: anti-terrorism (NSA, the Police forces, Regime change etc). So I don’t take the view that 9/11 was created by the US administration, they certainly maximised the opportunities it gave them and created a massive vote-losing effect for anyone who opposes any policy linked to fighting terrorism.
Strangely no one has considered for a moment the idea that US Policies lead to Muslim hatred of the US (lets just blame the Koran).
3. So we have independent parts of the US administration attempting different things (under the cover of anti-terrorism or just the cover of secrecy) in different parts of the world, and they have been doing this for decades. The President is not in charge.
How else could there be a Pentagon terrorist presence in Syria AND a CIA presence in Syria.
4. So Sam Husseini was right – there is rationality in the individual policies.
But there is no coherence in policies (there is no President). And certainly the policies are not based on anti-terrorism. (Though they are carried out under the cover of anti-terrorism, and it is the poor PR men for the administration that are being made to look irrational, not the admin parts theirselves).
“At first I thought that they were just being foolish by not seeing the point I was making — they’re supposed to be critics of U.S. government policy. Then I wondered if the notion of parsing through a government’s stated goals vs its actual goals might be threatening to folks who take their queues from the establishment of any country.”
Lavelle Is really out of control here. He really should let Husseini explain.
Of course Husseini is right.
I am surprised that Lavelle keeps blasting with his “irratrional” theory.
The dame in London and Lavelle are not able to see a step beyond.
Very disappointed in Lavelle and the London lady. Both intelligent but both missing Husseini’s point and both so intent on their sense of outrage that they cannot admit certain ideas into their brains and think outside their boxes.
Lavelle really has to learn to shut up.
Is this show designed to be his bully pulpit?
Husseini was quite right that HE was the one getting interrupted, by two little old ladies shocked, shocked, that ther might be method in the USA’s madness.
I would really like to hear more of Husseini has to say. I believe that his view —that the actual aim of USA “foreign policy,” is failed states in the ME—is shared by many on this blog. I would like to hear what Husseini thinks the longer game plan is: How does the USA plan to use the failed states, the state of failure all around that it has created? To prop up its friends and help them reach their agendas (Saudis spread Wahhabism; Israelis build Greater Israel)—Is that as far as it goes? Or are those also just steps on the way to something else? What? A pipeline? Is that as far as it goes? What’s after that?
All in all, the most frustrating Crosstalk I have heard.
I had exactly your feeling. Husseini was precisely aking us to thing outside the “morality” box. The creators of the failing states are rational and largely effective. They are successful in deconstructing, they reach their goals precisely by doing what they do in one way and by describing it another way. To ask them to be “honest” (as Husseini pointed out) is childish in my view. You fight the bully, you dont ask him to be fair, or “rationnel”. Because he will not, as long as you consider that he is doing what he does because he is not well instructed (included about “his own interest”). Leftists’ weakness comes most of the time from this arrogant feeling of possessing the rationality per se and the power to interpret others’ rationale. Instead of stopping the bully, they are “reasoning” where, as GWB or someone else around him once put it, these “others” are bringing new facts on the ground… to be “rationalized” and interpreted… Husseini seems to try to get us back to active modesty.
Well, I see Katherine’s point that the guy that was saying that US policy is not stupid or irrational was being mocked and misunderstood by Peter and the young woman, yeah I can see that there was a bit of demonization going on, on the show…I liked that guy and I think he’s right, but Peter and the nice woman were wanting to call US foreign policy ‘stupid’…which is a subjective term..not really perhaps what’s going on in the State Department…I mean is Hilary Clinton ‘stupid’ or does her agenda follow ‘failed states’. I know I mention her instead of Obama, but I wonder how much Mrs. Clinton has ‘strings’ behind the puppet…?
No Obama is not stupid. He is sick of 9/11, sick of AIPAC, sick of Israel, and especially sick of Netanyahu treating him with the “n” word.
Obama is smart along with the deep state. With the help of both Democrats and Republicans, he has brought Russia in Syria on Israel’s doorsteps. No longer Israel can violate Syria’s airspace, along with now Syria possessing the best Russia military hardware.
What can Netanyahu do. He has burned all his bridges with everyone. So, he runs to Russia and comes back empty handed. Now, we have color revolution in Israel.
There is much rabid foam on Netanyahu’s mouth, that he now claims that the Mufti of Palestine was responsible for Holocaust. Very soon, he will be taken away in straight jacket.
“A beautiful article at Information Clearing House (ICL), which exactly says what I have saying for the last two years on this blog:
But I think Katherine, that Peter Lavelle makes these shows happen…without Peter Lavelle you would not even know about alot of these guests. So he’s not perfect…do you think you could do better ? Like get to where Peter is today and continue until you could ‘out do’ him ?
It is Peter’s way, to chock it up to stupidily what the other, very intelligent and serious guest is saying is US foreign policy on purpose..no stupidity involved.
I have often said that I love Peter and his show.
And I never would have heard of him if I hadn’t stumbled on this blog.
So, that is really not the issue.
But sometimes his style and personality do get in the way.
And in this case, I think we—and Peter and his other guests, too- have missed an opportunity to try to look behind teh veil and understand, and use all of that brainpower to take Husseini’s ideas on board and see where they lead. Get ahead of the process.
In fact, I questin the value of the little tag that he slings out breathlessly at the beginning of each show, so breathlessly that he doen’st actually finish it: You can jump in ata nay time and I encourage you to do —. I think that is quite stupid, actually. On some of the shows hosted by I think it is Solovyev (?) that I have seen, what struck me was (1) the space that Sol gives his esteemed guests to speak at length, address a multitude of issues, and then combine them into coherent presentations—on teh spot!!—not ‘breathless”—, and (2) the courtesy among guests and teh sense that we are witnessing a colloquy whose aim is to combine ideas, counterideas, to dialecticallly (whoa, dont use THAT words at your local backyard BBQ) arrive at a synthesis.
The invitation for everyone to interrupt everyone else and how this works out in practice is, I think, a weakness of the show’s conception. Especially when Peter himself uses his role to override, shout down, and generally pull the plug on his guests. Especially unfair when tehy are not in the studio, and he seems to do it more with the people who are not there in person. Evidence on the suppression of normal etiquette considerations when people are not physically present? Anyhow, re Peter, sure, fine when it is the LA Zionist, not so fine when it is Gil, the guy from Brussels, or this Sam Husseini.
Actually, half way through Peter justifies his view that US policy is irrational because he claims all the powers the US wants to bring down and actually empowered eventually…so US Foreign policy is stupid..
Too bad the stubborn point that was repeatedly attempted to be made by the guest with glasses was not grasped and acknowledged by Lavelle and the other two guests, and they kept cutting him off before he could construct his point:
There IS a rationale to US and Anglo-Zionist policy in Syria, Libya, Iraq etc but it was never meant to mirror the morality, logic and common sense of the three that don’t get the man’s simple, basic, yet most important point (of any point!) in the whole discussion: The “US” policy, though indefensible (because it is evil) is not irrational or a failure (yet) IN ITS OWN TERMS.
Chaos, failed states, genocide, perpetual war, terror, ISIS, refugees are not unintended stupidities, they are INTENDED evils (as the guest with glasses tried to show) and they are not intended to stop in Syria, nor even in the middle east. They are intended to reach Russia and China and all points in between, breaking all state resistance globally and culminating in the toppling of all obstacles to savage global depopulation.
As difficult as this evil is to contemplate, facing this evil is so much more important to defeating that evil than having 3 persons out of 4 on the show spending all their time agreeing with each other, but failing to really hear what the 4th person is saying, which is more important than their oh so easy agreement and perhaps subconscious (but in vain!) hopes that their morality and reasonableness will convince satanic minds to somehow see the light and be rational and good, like themselves. Lavelle and his two agreement partners may persuade some good, basic, ordinary American viewers that they are right (because they are, morally……. but not analytically rigorous enough, here…..) but they will never persuade Kerry, McCain, Hillary and the rest who have sold their souls to the devil long ago.
And the point the guest with the glasses was trying to make is the more important point, by far, for ordinary Americans to grasp. So that passive toleration of Kerry, McCain, Hillary and the rest evaporates due to an urgently needed miracle of mass, dawning awareness of the horror of the evil reality of the policy being conducted in our (American) name. It is not “stupid”. It is devilishly clever and evil and has worked far too well thus far, because far too few people have coldly faced up to what we are up against here, with the evil, lying, murderous rot at the head of our society’s “establishment”. The best hope of changing reality is to first face it, as the one guest seemed to be willing to do, as far as I could see.
Glad to see so many good comments here again. I thought this was a good program, genuine disagreement, though I too hoped they’d let Huseini finish and had considered his proposed goal for the US, which he put forward several times without acknowledgement.
I tend to disagree that creating failed states is planned and a goal in itself. The goal seems to be control. However, as others suggest, the actions that create failed states are not irrational either. It’s typical abuser logic. Incapable of constructive policy and driven by a basic sadomasochism and an urge to control, destructive policies become the default, may appear “constructive” while the abuser is winning (and while you side with him, as per the Eurocrat perspective), and will begin to appear irrational when he starts to lose and his control starts to slip. Irrationality is another matter, though, and I don’t think it’s helpful to label one’s opponent irrational. Losing control, yes, failing to implement desired policies, yes, defaulting to short-term self-preservation (reserve currency status and appearances of unipolarity) at probable and by now apparent cost to power and ability to control medium to long term, yes, increasingly unreliable, duplicitous and fidgety, yes, but not irrational and incapable of falling back on a policy of failed states (and claiming victory) when the delusional grandness of their strategy turns out not so grand.
We agree on what was essential here. For today, Peter missed something. But very often, he is right to not let some people use his work as a platform to go on instillating a venom already available in mainstream. I mean he is right to vigourously reject, for example, the insubstantiated idea that “Assad the-dictator-must-go-because-he kills-his-people-with-barrelbombs-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction-and-he-is an Alawit-the-Sunnis-will-never-accept-again” etc, etc. That kind of viscious argument that gained momentum just by being repeated everywhere is also very difficult to fight.
Peter didn’t miss anything…he just doesn’t tolerate the defense of smart US policy..because Iran and Iraq are friends, Russia is protecting Syria and on and on…he just doesn’t buy the smart USA meme…and I personally totally respect him. I like him.
I conclude that this type of venue is useless for anyone like that Sam Husseini (didn’t see his name in subtext so unsure of spelling) who talks in minor riddles until you get the full gist and also tends to answer a question with a question. He and Lavelle end up talking over each other’s heads.
You’d have to replay it several times to piece together Sam’s response to the first question because of the continual interruptions and the conversation moving on 2 or 3 times.
It would be great to read a prepared statement by all participants to complement the discussion/squabble.
The US’s divide and conquer method of regime change has seen many repeats. Find the opposition -and preferably the more violent the better, give them money and weapons and let them do the initial dirty work. Then step in with R2P and clobber civilian water/sanitation/power infrastructure (oh! I almost forgot hospitals!) and then when the place is destroyed do the vulture & IMF debt slave bit then move on to the next sovereign nation in need of a hit. Works every time -until now.
It’s all part of growing up and being a manifestly destined exceptional Hegemon.
I’d seen Husseini before, but I don’t follow his work and am not a “fan”. This disclaimer is made just to note that I took his responses at face value.
As many other commenters here noted, Husseini’s approach clearly confused and confounded the other panelists, and triggered Lavelle’s penchant for getting exercised and losing his cool.
Perhaps Lavelle’s passion is a virtue to some watchers, but this time it was wholly misguided because both he and the other panelists mistook Husseini’s cryptic questions as opposition.
Thus, as the program progressed they treated Husseini like the “odd man out”– as if he was just another Contrarian Looney to pile on, a stock feature of Crosstalk.
I especially agree that Husseini’s approach is not suited to Crosstalk’s format and habits, for lack of a better term. I characterize his questioning technique as “Socratic” in a broad sense; he seems to be “baiting” his interlocutors, but he’s actually trying to get them to examine the problematic and dubious assumptions in their shared perspective.
I should think that almost everyone has had teachers and professors who employ this approach. One of the best teachers I ever had, a high school history teacher, drove us crazy at first because we thought such questions were supercilious, hostile, and sarcastic– even though we didn’t think in those exact terms.
Eventually some of us caught on: he was being “difficult” in order to get us to think. I’m surprised that the presumably well-educated panelists, including Lavelle, got so irritated and defensive that they didn’t twig what he was up to– I guess they never had one of those “Socratic” teachers.
Judging the rationality of the US policy depends on:
Time frame — long or short
Benefiting who, and rational for whose goals
Rational by what criteria? Moral, power, financial? Death abroad for more power or money in the US?
Based on what assumptions? A policy based on wrong axioms or assumption of fact may be very rational — logical — even though very incorrect.
What is rational for the devil may seem irrational to anyone else.
In my view, the rational and irrational are akin to the conscious and unconscious, both parts of the human psyche. Problems arise when they separate from their natural substrate, the lovsciousness level and fight themselves.
That all too brief statement cannot be understood without its supporting context which I present at thelovegovernment.com.
The comments as usual are more substantive than the lead article. Machiavellian was mentioned. I scanned the Wikipedia entry and found it quite revealing about politics now. Machiavelli is said to be the founder of modern politics. I’m quite sure Putin is familiar with his works, judging from some of Putin’s actions relating to power.
Putin is not machiavellian in the negative sense but he seems to understand well the dynamics of power. The evil elites have surely read Machiavelli and practice his more dark ideas. We would do well to understand them as well. In fact most of this community does recognize the dark side and comments bear this out.
As for the light side, well that’s debatable. Cheers.
I’m agreeing with most of the comments here, and for once, the guest – Husseini – was in the right and Lavelle in the wrong, not so much for interrupting him (I grew accustomed to Lavelle doing that) I was more miffed by the fact that Peter wasn’t really listening, he was guessing. This was exacerbated also by Husseini style of communication which wasn’t very clear. In the end, it was a recipe for misunderstanding (although, I suspect Szamuely understood Husseini’s point, judging by his enthusiastic nodding while Husseini was speaking)
The problem with Lavelle is that he’s too invested in this pet theory of his of: “unintended consequences,” it doesn’t matter what you say to him, he won’t let it go!
What does he mean by “unintended consequences”? Perusing a goal that later goes unrealized and/or replaced by some sort of undesired blow-back, for example? (I’m suspecting he’d agree to that) Oh, I see, Peter, (I’d answer) a bit like fighting Nazi Germany in WWII but now we have an EU ruled by Germany? That kind of “unintended consequences”?
Trouble is; to believe that, you have to completely ignore the fact that Germany doesn’t rule anything, not even itself. They’re just a US puppet state, or more precisely; they’re the designated middle-men between Washington and the other EU nation members. Germany’s position is utterly pathetic in fact, a bit like Mr. Smithers in the Simpson’s: a brown-noser who runs nothing but is the main target of people’s hatred because he’s the one who has to implement Mr. Burns policies or else.
This is the problem I have with not calling a spade a spade. The narrative gets blurred and we’re forever going around in circles, never getting to the root cause of anything.
I got unduly excited by this episode’s title: Sulking Superpower. And it’s true, the Hegemon seems to be sulking at the moment, but the CrossTalk guests never got to that point and explore the reasons why they maybe sulking. Instead; they’ve got all tangled-up in agreeing or disagreeing wheter the US’ “foreign policy” is irrational or not.
Might as well rename this episode: Irrational Superpower, because that’s what it was about.
Peter didn’t give the man with the mustache time to fully develop his points and made the show an almost pointless shouting match. I was wondering where that guy was going and wanted him to either make an interesting point or hang himself. The other participants needed to hear him out and think before jumping down his throat. He simply could not have taken the position that US policy in the mideast and north africa is BOTH evil and good.
Haven’t seen the show, but the criticisms of Peter Lavelle are pretty accurate in general. (Doesn’t reduce my enthusiasm for PL or the show though. Nothing is perfect.)
I agree there is a rationale behind the US-sponsored violence in the Middle East. Energy control is a big part of it. But it is complicated by ideological elements – the Oded Yinon Plan (of which the A-J Plan is a subset) is religious in purpose, if strategic in aim
.
So the ‘rational’ aspect (control and exploitation of resources, theft of land etc.) is underlined by ‘irrational’ aspects ( Zionism and Wahaabism) which the rationalists believe they can control and direct .
This is the ‘fatal flaw’ in the ‘character’ of such plans. It leads to factions, any one of which can act to ignite ‘unintended consequences.’ Or which can emerge as a coherent and sizeable threat to its original creators.
The Saudis are now discovering this.
So is the Israeli regime.
Trouble internally is intensifying for both.
And, as China, Russia and Iran begin to coalesce into a real Axis of Resistance ( Rouhani recently said the nuclear deal will be implemented under the guidance of the Supreme Leader, putting paid to any notions of the US using it as a ‘colour revolution’ vehicle ) the ‘cancers’ in the ‘underbelly’ of the ‘Worldchild’ (EurAsia) are facing concerted ‘radiation.’
Now it remains to be seen if Turkey finally wises up.
Disease pathogens – like cholera – don’t respect borders. Or status.
Quite a lively discussion on rationality and irrationality. US policy is driven by irrational belief. Then it uses rational methods to implement its policy. I think Irene Caesar is correct that the ruling world elites are largely khazars who are genetically programmed for violence. This is the irrational unconscious.
As is the case today, irrationality sometimes results with “the engineer being hoisted by his own petard.”
And let us not allow people to forget that 9/11 was a khazar inside job IMO. Certain esteemed liberals who shall be nameless here cannot come clean about 9/11 for fear the populace will realize that Israel was largely responsible for the biggest terrorist attack of all which started the crazy war on terror. Then all hell would break loose for the AZs. Now the terror tactic is turning on its perpetrators despite efforts to cloak it.
Watch the language change from terrorist to moderate terrorist to freedom fighters. If we buy that we’re dumber than I thought.
Justice is very real although sometimes slow to come around either here or hereafter.
“Justice is very real although sometimes slow to come around either here or hereafte”r
The wheels of God in other words Dennis?. “They grind slow, but they grind exceeding slow”.
Something some powers that are would do well to remember
Yes, indeed. I agree with the qualification that God himself is subject to the higher justice administered by Love. I know I’m touching a sensitive nerve but I must be wary of justice in my own case. It’s not just a matter of semantics for me. Words are powerful energizers one way or the other. I’ve got to be careful how I use them.
This not the place to elaborate on that theme. For those so inclined, see the end of comments on the Nasrallah thread or thelovegovernment.com.
that’s so silly. Dont you know the bible little song
God is Love
Whoever abides in Love
Abides in God
And God in him
Lavelle and the lady would not let the gentleman finish a thought; and he, not they, was correct: the U.S. policy in the Middle East is perfectly rational. It is in the interest of the U.S. and its allies – Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel – that there be failed states in the Middle East. It is an evil policy, but it is perfectly rational.
Yeah I kept thinking that the whole time. Why was it hard for anyone of them to say that America is pure f** evil. A cold calculating pure evil. But of course that doesn’t mean that they will succeed with their designs in the long run. Nevertheless in their view it is rational and at the moment they seem to be succeeding… on one hand. But on the other hand whenever US doesn’t achieve its stated goals it declares it won and packs things up. So I’m a bit confused.
No, it is not rational, it is irrational. It is very simple. These same policies have been tried over and over through previous decades. Failure after failure. The areas fall out of the grip of the US. And so at best they get a Pyrrhic victor of creating a failed state, which they subsequently lose. The only real victory that could be achieved by those approaches would require simultaneous suppression of the development of all the other countries of the region and the world. By focusing attention on creating failed states, they lose the lead in industrialization and economic power, which leads to the loss of these areas they have worked to destabilize. It is irrational because they have lost the initiative in the real power sphere, which means that these creations of failed states are petty victories, which they will subsequently lose.
And Russia, by the way, is an example of just such a state. In the 90’s Russia was on the ropes, and firmly in the grip of the west, very destabilized by Atlantic leaning forces. Not a failed state, but approaching the level of destabilization, that fits into the picture the man was talking about. It was like a war was going on there. Look at it now. The US has very little chance now of getting Russia in its grip again, like back in the 90’s. Sure, the Atlantic leaning powers are still there, but they have serious opposition now, and they don’t have the levers of state power.
Creating failed states does not turn out they way the man would want.
100% agree.
It is a Machiavellian strategy .. and only a ‘failure’ interpreted through a moral prism or expectation on the ‘democracy replacing Evil Dictators blah blah’ complete rubbish sales pitch for the wars.
There was NO failure in Iraq.
Stage 1 was Gulf Wars & Sanctions to weaken before invasion & occupation;
Stage 2 was Shock and Awe with DELIBERATE installing sectarian constitution, DELIBERATE refusal of Saddam’s military & govt workers any employment …. leaving al CIAda free to hire and arm them in preparation for
Stage 3 – unleashing of IS on Syria and then Iraq – who were DELBERATELY left with no air cover (and as per recent WikiLeaks – Israel and Maliki connived to get rid of pilots),
Stage 4 fragmenting Sy-raq into small weak warring sectarian statelets …. both depopulated and ‘brain drained’ by wars and refugee exodus ….. as indicated in Peter / Wolfowitz / Oded Yinon plans … many a map presented of the plan in NYT even.
– fragmented meaning all the easier for colonisation and control… and all wanting arms sales …..
And Syria not able to support Hezbollah to give IDF a bloody nose next time they invade Lebanon to annex more land, or grab more than Golan Hts , nor Iran – still on the cards possible war / regime change there.
Libya was not a ‘failure’ by Machiavellian objectives :
– The gold and cash heisted, the African Bank and gold dinar stopped; France got the Aquifer project … and AngloZioNATO control Libya – which ‘sandwiches’ Egypt in any future war to grab “From the Nile…” part of Eretz Israel / Pax Judaica colonisation plan.
– Still useful anarchy operating as an al CIAda jihadi and arms clearing cesspool established for Boko Haram paving the way to AFRICOM operations of subsequent neoColonisation wars raging across North Africa … justifying more military bases, arms and sale of security services as the Anglohadis rush off to “save 270 girls” (from their oil, coltan, uranium and Chinese investment in old fashioned win-win trade deals)
AngloZio Empires “Divide and Ruin” strategy has been Machiavellian in the extreme – but quite successful in achieving the step by step objectives.
Can / Will Russia keep Syria intact in forthcoming negotiations remains to be seen.
Iraq-Kurdistan split off and already has IDF military bases ..
US courting Syrian Kurds – to create and co-join into a larger Israeli friendly Kurdistan?
Will Saudi get it’s Sunnistan spanning Syria-Iraq and bordering Iran for the March on Tehran?
Will Israel get Golan Heights and grab extra ‘Druzestan’?
Lets wait and see … I sure hope not.
Thank you DeeCT. I’ve always thought that banking/money/$ interests were a major reason for the wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria and banking is the big reason Iran is our big enemy. If the western banking interests can’t control them through loans with interest, then they are a threat to US/Israel hegemony. If there is any truth to this, then the wars are VERY RATIONAL from western banker’s point of view. I don’t think Peter Lavelle ever understood that there could be a rational for creating a failed state. He is one of the best but “there could be a rational reason to create a failed state” went right by him.
Crosstalk regularly argues about US stupidity or mistakes, but tends to avoid the idea that these are simply evil policies that often work, but sometimes don’t. America may have failed to get much of what they wanted in the Ukraine, but they got a certain amount. Other countries may have turned out better. Libya and Somalia, for example. Islamic terrorism is a tremendous positive for the US. It harms enemies, such as Russia and China, and allows the US to decide what areas get destabilized, thus pressuring countries to obey the US. What is not to like about it? Brzezinski said something along the lines of “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
So what matters now? Some stirred-up Muslims or the crushing of anti-US/Israel or pro-Russian regimes in the Middle East?
Unfortunately, US policy is rational – but mostly only for them. If you are running a state in which a very significant portion of work and income are generated by the military industrial and security complex, you will be strongly incited to use their products in order to produce more. Mere renewal from time to time is by far insufficient to consume the output of the US weapons manufacturers.
Hence, perpetual wars in foreign countries for the mere sake of domestic profit is the goal, because it is the life support the global and in particular the US weapons industry needs. Add to that the notion that certain elites would like to reduce the global human population by 80% to 90%. I am in favor of a population reduction but by peaceful means: somewhat less births than natural deaths reducing population by 1% to 2% a year. However, some people prefer the violent alternative by ignoring the experience that failed states tend to perpetuate excessive reproduction. Which closes the circle for more violent conflicts.
As a consequence, anyone who wants change for the better should interrogate himself/herself honestly, if what he/she is doing serves a healthy purpose. If not, stop doing it and stop it now!
US policy is a mess for a lot of reasons.
1. It is not Machiavellian – it is opportunistic – that is the US is ungovernable top down by a President because of the Senate, Congress and the press. There are three ways of making things happen:
a) by doing it in secret (a lot of foreign policy is done that way) and lying about it.
b) do things that would lose votes for anyone who argued against it (and present it/lie about it to make it look that way)
c) by creating events (provocation or lies about actual events) that push public opinion the way they want it to go (so in Ukraine the attempt has been to prove Russian Intervention hence the lies on Russian Presence in E Ukraine, the provocation of shelling civilians 30km from the Russian boarder – how gutsy has Putin been to not react to that – and the false twisting of evidence over MH17).
So there are things that can be done – torture, Drones, regime change and things that can’t be done (gun laws) which are due to the way democracy works in the US, not because ordinary Americans re particularly violent.
2. Anti-Terrorism is such a massive influence on everything in the US and the various bits of the administration that independently decide which opportunities to take have all taken advantage of: anti-terrorism (NSA, the Police forces, Regime change etc). So I don’t take the view that 9/11 was created by the US administration, they certainly maximised the opportunities it gave them and created a massive vote-losing effect for anyone who opposes any policy linked to fighting terrorism.
Strangely no one has considered for a moment the idea that US Policies lead to Muslim hatred of the US (lets just blame the Koran).
3. So we have independent parts of the US administration attempting different things (under the cover of anti-terrorism or just the cover of secrecy) in different parts of the world, and they have been doing this for decades. The President is not in charge.
How else could there be a Pentagon terrorist presence in Syria AND a CIA presence in Syria.
4. So Sam Husseini was right – there is rationality in the individual policies.
But there is no coherence in policies (there is no President). And certainly the policies are not based on anti-terrorism. (Though they are carried out under the cover of anti-terrorism, and it is the poor PR men for the administration that are being made to look irrational, not the admin parts theirselves).
This is a bit late to contribute here, but Husseini had an article on Counterpunch about this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/28/crosstalk-state-media-and-the-irrational/
“At first I thought that they were just being foolish by not seeing the point I was making — they’re supposed to be critics of U.S. government policy. Then I wondered if the notion of parsing through a government’s stated goals vs its actual goals might be threatening to folks who take their queues from the establishment of any country.”
Lavelle Is really out of control here. He really should let Husseini explain.
Of course Husseini is right.
I am surprised that Lavelle keeps blasting with his “irratrional” theory.
The dame in London and Lavelle are not able to see a step beyond.
Very disappointed in Lavelle and the London lady. Both intelligent but both missing Husseini’s point and both so intent on their sense of outrage that they cannot admit certain ideas into their brains and think outside their boxes.
Lavelle really has to learn to shut up.
Is this show designed to be his bully pulpit?
Husseini was quite right that HE was the one getting interrupted, by two little old ladies shocked, shocked, that ther might be method in the USA’s madness.
I would really like to hear more of Husseini has to say. I believe that his view —that the actual aim of USA “foreign policy,” is failed states in the ME—is shared by many on this blog. I would like to hear what Husseini thinks the longer game plan is: How does the USA plan to use the failed states, the state of failure all around that it has created? To prop up its friends and help them reach their agendas (Saudis spread Wahhabism; Israelis build Greater Israel)—Is that as far as it goes? Or are those also just steps on the way to something else? What? A pipeline? Is that as far as it goes? What’s after that?
All in all, the most frustrating Crosstalk I have heard.
Katherine
I had exactly your feeling. Husseini was precisely aking us to thing outside the “morality” box. The creators of the failing states are rational and largely effective. They are successful in deconstructing, they reach their goals precisely by doing what they do in one way and by describing it another way. To ask them to be “honest” (as Husseini pointed out) is childish in my view. You fight the bully, you dont ask him to be fair, or “rationnel”. Because he will not, as long as you consider that he is doing what he does because he is not well instructed (included about “his own interest”). Leftists’ weakness comes most of the time from this arrogant feeling of possessing the rationality per se and the power to interpret others’ rationale. Instead of stopping the bully, they are “reasoning” where, as GWB or someone else around him once put it, these “others” are bringing new facts on the ground… to be “rationalized” and interpreted… Husseini seems to try to get us back to active modesty.
Well, I see Katherine’s point that the guy that was saying that US policy is not stupid or irrational was being mocked and misunderstood by Peter and the young woman, yeah I can see that there was a bit of demonization going on, on the show…I liked that guy and I think he’s right, but Peter and the nice woman were wanting to call US foreign policy ‘stupid’…which is a subjective term..not really perhaps what’s going on in the State Department…I mean is Hilary Clinton ‘stupid’ or does her agenda follow ‘failed states’. I know I mention her instead of Obama, but I wonder how much Mrs. Clinton has ‘strings’ behind the puppet…?
Salam Ann,
No Obama is not stupid. He is sick of 9/11, sick of AIPAC, sick of Israel, and especially sick of Netanyahu treating him with the “n” word.
Obama is smart along with the deep state. With the help of both Democrats and Republicans, he has brought Russia in Syria on Israel’s doorsteps. No longer Israel can violate Syria’s airspace, along with now Syria possessing the best Russia military hardware.
What can Netanyahu do. He has burned all his bridges with everyone. So, he runs to Russia and comes back empty handed. Now, we have color revolution in Israel.
There is much rabid foam on Netanyahu’s mouth, that he now claims that the Mufti of Palestine was responsible for Holocaust. Very soon, he will be taken away in straight jacket.
“A beautiful article at Information Clearing House (ICL), which exactly says what I have saying for the last two years on this blog:
Russia Destroys The Greater Israel Dream
By Taxi
Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43205.htm
The grand plan was going swimmingly….”
Rejoice,
Mohamed
But I think Katherine, that Peter Lavelle makes these shows happen…without Peter Lavelle you would not even know about alot of these guests. So he’s not perfect…do you think you could do better ? Like get to where Peter is today and continue until you could ‘out do’ him ?
It is Peter’s way, to chock it up to stupidily what the other, very intelligent and serious guest is saying is US foreign policy on purpose..no stupidity involved.
But he did treat that dignified guy from DC with shortness of comments..on purpose…
I have often said that I love Peter and his show.
And I never would have heard of him if I hadn’t stumbled on this blog.
So, that is really not the issue.
But sometimes his style and personality do get in the way.
And in this case, I think we—and Peter and his other guests, too- have missed an opportunity to try to look behind teh veil and understand, and use all of that brainpower to take Husseini’s ideas on board and see where they lead. Get ahead of the process.
In fact, I questin the value of the little tag that he slings out breathlessly at the beginning of each show, so breathlessly that he doen’st actually finish it: You can jump in ata nay time and I encourage you to do —. I think that is quite stupid, actually. On some of the shows hosted by I think it is Solovyev (?) that I have seen, what struck me was (1) the space that Sol gives his esteemed guests to speak at length, address a multitude of issues, and then combine them into coherent presentations—on teh spot!!—not ‘breathless”—, and (2) the courtesy among guests and teh sense that we are witnessing a colloquy whose aim is to combine ideas, counterideas, to dialecticallly (whoa, dont use THAT words at your local backyard BBQ) arrive at a synthesis.
The invitation for everyone to interrupt everyone else and how this works out in practice is, I think, a weakness of the show’s conception. Especially when Peter himself uses his role to override, shout down, and generally pull the plug on his guests. Especially unfair when tehy are not in the studio, and he seems to do it more with the people who are not there in person. Evidence on the suppression of normal etiquette considerations when people are not physically present? Anyhow, re Peter, sure, fine when it is the LA Zionist, not so fine when it is Gil, the guy from Brussels, or this Sam Husseini.
Oops, that was me again, not Anonymous.
Katherine
Actually, half way through Peter justifies his view that US policy is irrational because he claims all the powers the US wants to bring down and actually empowered eventually…so US Foreign policy is stupid..
Yup..I agree.
Too bad the stubborn point that was repeatedly attempted to be made by the guest with glasses was not grasped and acknowledged by Lavelle and the other two guests, and they kept cutting him off before he could construct his point:
There IS a rationale to US and Anglo-Zionist policy in Syria, Libya, Iraq etc but it was never meant to mirror the morality, logic and common sense of the three that don’t get the man’s simple, basic, yet most important point (of any point!) in the whole discussion: The “US” policy, though indefensible (because it is evil) is not irrational or a failure (yet) IN ITS OWN TERMS.
Chaos, failed states, genocide, perpetual war, terror, ISIS, refugees are not unintended stupidities, they are INTENDED evils (as the guest with glasses tried to show) and they are not intended to stop in Syria, nor even in the middle east. They are intended to reach Russia and China and all points in between, breaking all state resistance globally and culminating in the toppling of all obstacles to savage global depopulation.
As difficult as this evil is to contemplate, facing this evil is so much more important to defeating that evil than having 3 persons out of 4 on the show spending all their time agreeing with each other, but failing to really hear what the 4th person is saying, which is more important than their oh so easy agreement and perhaps subconscious (but in vain!) hopes that their morality and reasonableness will convince satanic minds to somehow see the light and be rational and good, like themselves. Lavelle and his two agreement partners may persuade some good, basic, ordinary American viewers that they are right (because they are, morally……. but not analytically rigorous enough, here…..) but they will never persuade Kerry, McCain, Hillary and the rest who have sold their souls to the devil long ago.
And the point the guest with the glasses was trying to make is the more important point, by far, for ordinary Americans to grasp. So that passive toleration of Kerry, McCain, Hillary and the rest evaporates due to an urgently needed miracle of mass, dawning awareness of the horror of the evil reality of the policy being conducted in our (American) name. It is not “stupid”. It is devilishly clever and evil and has worked far too well thus far, because far too few people have coldly faced up to what we are up against here, with the evil, lying, murderous rot at the head of our society’s “establishment”. The best hope of changing reality is to first face it, as the one guest seemed to be willing to do, as far as I could see.
Glad to see so many good comments here again. I thought this was a good program, genuine disagreement, though I too hoped they’d let Huseini finish and had considered his proposed goal for the US, which he put forward several times without acknowledgement.
I tend to disagree that creating failed states is planned and a goal in itself. The goal seems to be control. However, as others suggest, the actions that create failed states are not irrational either. It’s typical abuser logic. Incapable of constructive policy and driven by a basic sadomasochism and an urge to control, destructive policies become the default, may appear “constructive” while the abuser is winning (and while you side with him, as per the Eurocrat perspective), and will begin to appear irrational when he starts to lose and his control starts to slip. Irrationality is another matter, though, and I don’t think it’s helpful to label one’s opponent irrational. Losing control, yes, failing to implement desired policies, yes, defaulting to short-term self-preservation (reserve currency status and appearances of unipolarity) at probable and by now apparent cost to power and ability to control medium to long term, yes, increasingly unreliable, duplicitous and fidgety, yes, but not irrational and incapable of falling back on a policy of failed states (and claiming victory) when the delusional grandness of their strategy turns out not so grand.
Yes agree with your summary of the show n comments!
We agree on what was essential here. For today, Peter missed something. But very often, he is right to not let some people use his work as a platform to go on instillating a venom already available in mainstream. I mean he is right to vigourously reject, for example, the insubstantiated idea that “Assad the-dictator-must-go-because-he kills-his-people-with-barrelbombs-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction-and-he-is an Alawit-the-Sunnis-will-never-accept-again” etc, etc. That kind of viscious argument that gained momentum just by being repeated everywhere is also very difficult to fight.
Hi African Postman..cute name…
Peter didn’t miss anything…he just doesn’t tolerate the defense of smart US policy..because Iran and Iraq are friends, Russia is protecting Syria and on and on…he just doesn’t buy the smart USA meme…and I personally totally respect him. I like him.
I conclude that this type of venue is useless for anyone like that Sam Husseini (didn’t see his name in subtext so unsure of spelling) who talks in minor riddles until you get the full gist and also tends to answer a question with a question. He and Lavelle end up talking over each other’s heads.
You’d have to replay it several times to piece together Sam’s response to the first question because of the continual interruptions and the conversation moving on 2 or 3 times.
It would be great to read a prepared statement by all participants to complement the discussion/squabble.
The US’s divide and conquer method of regime change has seen many repeats. Find the opposition -and preferably the more violent the better, give them money and weapons and let them do the initial dirty work. Then step in with R2P and clobber civilian water/sanitation/power infrastructure (oh! I almost forgot hospitals!) and then when the place is destroyed do the vulture & IMF debt slave bit then move on to the next sovereign nation in need of a hit. Works every time -until now.
It’s all part of growing up and being a manifestly destined exceptional Hegemon.
I think you make good points.
I’d seen Husseini before, but I don’t follow his work and am not a “fan”. This disclaimer is made just to note that I took his responses at face value.
As many other commenters here noted, Husseini’s approach clearly confused and confounded the other panelists, and triggered Lavelle’s penchant for getting exercised and losing his cool.
Perhaps Lavelle’s passion is a virtue to some watchers, but this time it was wholly misguided because both he and the other panelists mistook Husseini’s cryptic questions as opposition.
Thus, as the program progressed they treated Husseini like the “odd man out”– as if he was just another Contrarian Looney to pile on, a stock feature of Crosstalk.
I especially agree that Husseini’s approach is not suited to Crosstalk’s format and habits, for lack of a better term. I characterize his questioning technique as “Socratic” in a broad sense; he seems to be “baiting” his interlocutors, but he’s actually trying to get them to examine the problematic and dubious assumptions in their shared perspective.
I should think that almost everyone has had teachers and professors who employ this approach. One of the best teachers I ever had, a high school history teacher, drove us crazy at first because we thought such questions were supercilious, hostile, and sarcastic– even though we didn’t think in those exact terms.
Eventually some of us caught on: he was being “difficult” in order to get us to think. I’m surprised that the presumably well-educated panelists, including Lavelle, got so irritated and defensive that they didn’t twig what he was up to– I guess they never had one of those “Socratic” teachers.
Judging the rationality of the US policy depends on:
Time frame — long or short
Benefiting who, and rational for whose goals
Rational by what criteria? Moral, power, financial? Death abroad for more power or money in the US?
Based on what assumptions? A policy based on wrong axioms or assumption of fact may be very rational — logical — even though very incorrect.
What is rational for the devil may seem irrational to anyone else.
In my view, the rational and irrational are akin to the conscious and unconscious, both parts of the human psyche. Problems arise when they separate from their natural substrate, the lovsciousness level and fight themselves.
That all too brief statement cannot be understood without its supporting context which I present at thelovegovernment.com.
The comments as usual are more substantive than the lead article. Machiavellian was mentioned. I scanned the Wikipedia entry and found it quite revealing about politics now. Machiavelli is said to be the founder of modern politics. I’m quite sure Putin is familiar with his works, judging from some of Putin’s actions relating to power.
Putin is not machiavellian in the negative sense but he seems to understand well the dynamics of power. The evil elites have surely read Machiavelli and practice his more dark ideas. We would do well to understand them as well. In fact most of this community does recognize the dark side and comments bear this out.
As for the light side, well that’s debatable. Cheers.
I’m agreeing with most of the comments here, and for once, the guest – Husseini – was in the right and Lavelle in the wrong, not so much for interrupting him (I grew accustomed to Lavelle doing that) I was more miffed by the fact that Peter wasn’t really listening, he was guessing. This was exacerbated also by Husseini style of communication which wasn’t very clear. In the end, it was a recipe for misunderstanding (although, I suspect Szamuely understood Husseini’s point, judging by his enthusiastic nodding while Husseini was speaking)
The problem with Lavelle is that he’s too invested in this pet theory of his of: “unintended consequences,” it doesn’t matter what you say to him, he won’t let it go!
What does he mean by “unintended consequences”? Perusing a goal that later goes unrealized and/or replaced by some sort of undesired blow-back, for example? (I’m suspecting he’d agree to that) Oh, I see, Peter, (I’d answer) a bit like fighting Nazi Germany in WWII but now we have an EU ruled by Germany? That kind of “unintended consequences”?
Trouble is; to believe that, you have to completely ignore the fact that Germany doesn’t rule anything, not even itself. They’re just a US puppet state, or more precisely; they’re the designated middle-men between Washington and the other EU nation members. Germany’s position is utterly pathetic in fact, a bit like Mr. Smithers in the Simpson’s: a brown-noser who runs nothing but is the main target of people’s hatred because he’s the one who has to implement Mr. Burns policies or else.
This is the problem I have with not calling a spade a spade. The narrative gets blurred and we’re forever going around in circles, never getting to the root cause of anything.
I got unduly excited by this episode’s title: Sulking Superpower. And it’s true, the Hegemon seems to be sulking at the moment, but the CrossTalk guests never got to that point and explore the reasons why they maybe sulking. Instead; they’ve got all tangled-up in agreeing or disagreeing wheter the US’ “foreign policy” is irrational or not.
Might as well rename this episode: Irrational Superpower, because that’s what it was about.
-TL2Q
Reminds why I don’t watch that program.
Peter didn’t give the man with the mustache time to fully develop his points and made the show an almost pointless shouting match. I was wondering where that guy was going and wanted him to either make an interesting point or hang himself. The other participants needed to hear him out and think before jumping down his throat. He simply could not have taken the position that US policy in the mideast and north africa is BOTH evil and good.
Here is another great and sane voice for USA stupidity…I think the moustache guy is kind of over rated by all of us early in this thread…
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/assad-moscow/ri10635
Haven’t seen the show, but the criticisms of Peter Lavelle are pretty accurate in general. (Doesn’t reduce my enthusiasm for PL or the show though. Nothing is perfect.)
I agree there is a rationale behind the US-sponsored violence in the Middle East. Energy control is a big part of it. But it is complicated by ideological elements – the Oded Yinon Plan (of which the A-J Plan is a subset) is religious in purpose, if strategic in aim
.
So the ‘rational’ aspect (control and exploitation of resources, theft of land etc.) is underlined by ‘irrational’ aspects ( Zionism and Wahaabism) which the rationalists believe they can control and direct .
This is the ‘fatal flaw’ in the ‘character’ of such plans. It leads to factions, any one of which can act to ignite ‘unintended consequences.’ Or which can emerge as a coherent and sizeable threat to its original creators.
The Saudis are now discovering this.
So is the Israeli regime.
Trouble internally is intensifying for both.
And, as China, Russia and Iran begin to coalesce into a real Axis of Resistance ( Rouhani recently said the nuclear deal will be implemented under the guidance of the Supreme Leader, putting paid to any notions of the US using it as a ‘colour revolution’ vehicle ) the ‘cancers’ in the ‘underbelly’ of the ‘Worldchild’ (EurAsia) are facing concerted ‘radiation.’
Now it remains to be seen if Turkey finally wises up.
Disease pathogens – like cholera – don’t respect borders. Or status.