Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Technology doesn’t win wars. Why the US pretends it does. | Sean McFate | Big Think" video.

  1. Oh a ceocon Nato shill ! "Russis creates refugees in Syria by bombing them". The 500,000 or so victims (of this latest war) can be added to the death toll of the proxy wars started by the U.S., U.K. and France, plus KSA, Qatar, Turkey, Israel . - End of 2001 Syraia already came onto the death list: 7 countries in 5 years Gen. Wesley Clark. The agenda has been seamlessly continued (Cheney/Bush, Obama and now Trump). Let me repeat that: Syria was already on the kill list THEN in late fall 2001 or early 2002. (Assad had taken over in 2000). In 2005 or 2006 Christine Amanpour asked Assad in an interview: There is talk in Washington about regime change against you, maybe a coup .... What do you think about it (Great question by the way). At that time Israel already planned the war on Lebanon and then there was also the decision which pipeline project Assad would allow to go over Syrian territory to supply gas to Europe. The project of Iran with financial participation of Russia (both old allies) got preference over the project of Qatar (likely some Saudia interests as well). Clearly time for some humanitarian intervention. Plus the geostrategic situation since the 1970s and 1980s (War 1973 and regime change in Iran 1978). Syria and Israel are opponents / enemies - occupied Golan Heights. They also support Hamas (Palestinians) and Hezbollah (Lebanon). Now the big supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah is of course Iran. As long as Iran and Syria are intact these groups will have the "room" to maneuvre, to get supplies, weapons, ... Hezbollah has a political plus a military wing. The "terrorists" (asymmetric warfare) are taken very seriously by the U.S. - BUT there is confidence that they are not going to attack the U.S. (Larry Wilkerson)  if the U.S. does not attack them first. Which may explain why the U.S. is somewhat hesistant to help out Israel when they want to grab Lebanon (1980, war in ? 2006 or 2008). Likewise the U.S. (and Israel and KSA) are somewhat hesistant to start an open war against Iran. All hell would break loose: Strategic nationalistic terrorism as form of warfare ! as opposed to the religiously motivated lunatics which KSA (and Pakistan) sends out. Oil prices spiking - which would help countries like Venezuela and Russia which the U.S. treats as enemies. Plus it would harm the U.S. citizens, the whole society and economy is set up to squander energy (all rich countries use too much energy per capitata - but in Germany, etc. the building codes have for decades encouraged / mandated better insulation, or using good windows. The fossil fuel prices always have been higher (if only with taxation). So energy efficiency for cars and heating systems is well established technology. In the U.S. that was never necessary since the political decision was to keep prices down (and the military costs to enforce the desire for cheap oil were never added to the costs "cheap" oil). If you live in a well insulated home and drive a car that does not use a lot of gas a 30 or 50 % price spike will be felt - but it is nothing like when the whole country is in the habit of squandering energy. Likewise the industry (they kept manufacturing in those countries) already have incentives to use energy saving technology - and a new oil price spike would only speed up the implementation of new projects. In Europe and Japan it would not drive up inflation like in the 1970s with the oil crises. In the U.S. the polluting frackers would have a field day - and the dwindling middle class and the many "just about managing" would get the yellow vestes (Same in the U.K.). Splitting up Syria into (warring) parts dominated by jihadists and warlords would have been the first step on the way of getting to Iran. (Plus Turkey and Israel would have snatched some parts of Syrian territory for "security" concerns). That could have worked - but this time Russia was not sitting by idly (as they did with Iraq minding their own severe problems caused by unrestrained capitalism) and with Libya. Syria has (or had) 30 million people and according to Larry Wilkerson a very good army, one of the best in the Arab world. (KSA spends as much or more money on military as Russia - but they buy mainly expensive Western equipment they cannot even strategically integrate. The expenditures are to bribe Western politicians and the Western media !! Russia on the other hand has an army to reckon with (never mind the nukes) and they build the high tech weapons themselves (and export a lot of it). So the armament is also a revenue stream. In Oct. 2017 the former Prime Minister of Qatar on the TV of Qatar: KSA ordered him to come for a visit. They should set up camps and train fighters near the border (Jordan, Turkey) to infiltrate Syria (you bet these were jihadists), KSA would pay for the operation (too) but Qatar should lead the operation. It is well known that the U.S., KSA, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, France, U.K. started the proxy war against Syria. (Roland Dumas former French Foreign Minister in a TV interview recalls that he was on a visit in the U.K. and was asked if the French wanted to join the U.K. - in a regime change effort. In 2011 the Arab spring broke out. Syria had had a terrible draught in a part of the country, so it would not be hard to nurture dissatisfaction. (And it is not clear if the government did all they could to help those rural agricultural Sunni regions). The demonstrations against Assad started in an obscure town nearby the Jordan border - Assad always had the support of the large cities. We are told that the demonstrators were peaceful and brutally crushed by the government. Well the fact is - there already had been an ambush on soldiers weeks before (which the attackers did not announce - it would interfer with the story of the peaceful uprising and the government did not make public because it showed they were not in full control). I know some of these things because of the statements of a a Dutch missionary. There is a story how in one town people were arrested and tortured, even 2 teenage boys for only writing graffitis. That was what allegedly started the unrest. I am not sure if that story is true. Given the amount of Western propaganda and the crocodile tears regarding the civilian victims of the proxy war in Syria - while no one bats an eye regarding the brutal crushing of the protests in Bahrain, the prosecution of definitely peaceful dissent (not even public protest) in KSA, the brutal war crimes in Yemen, ...... Mother Mariam (from another area) tells how the Christian communities were subject to unusual brutal crimes. Dead bodies were found in plastic bags with signs Dirty Christian, do not touch. That had never happened before. Her community told her that foreign men were coming into the country, they spoke Arab but with a different accent.
    3
  2.  @SkepticalJesusOfficial  "War on terror (or drugs) is not winable" - That is the beauty of it. The Soviet Union STEPPED DOWN from the Cold War - so the U.S. war machine and the spying agencies found themselves stranded w/o a good enemy to justify the insane spending. The war on drugs is fuelled by despising people of color and / or poor poeple. It was re-started as a "legal" pretext to crush black communities and the hippies which Nixon considered to be his enemies. (Nixon admin member: We could not make it illegal to be black or against the war. So we went after their communities and their leaders in this way... Did we know that drugs - like weed - were not that dangerous ? Of course we knew). Before the prohibition already had proven a point WHO benefits from it. It was a broad coalition then that was for forbidding alcolhol (relgious, women's groups, familiy oriented, law and order types). And to be fair: then it was much harder to treat addiction to alcohol. Little was known and it can destroy families and businesses. The next prohibition was on weed (because it was the drug used by poor people, mexicans, and they could grow it themselves). See the infamous / almost comical piece of work: Reefer madness. While they were at it they also outlawed to grow hemp (with a short break because of WW2). Not that the fibers had anything to do with drugs, the psychoactive content is low and could have reduced further by breeding. But it was a convenient pretext to eliminated a fiber that was a threat to established industries (Cotton for instance). The war on drugs is flattering to the prejudices of the white and affluent "law and order" crowd who are always eager to reign in upcoming uppity groups of "others". If they act against the law they know how to avoid the consequences. The police also knows that they are not supposed to bother affluent white communities, if they use drugs - there is no organized effort to catch them and if they are caught they have the means to afford a good lawyer. Plus the jury and the judge is likely to sympathize with them. Studies prove that all other conditions being equal, white people get lower sentences. And judges tend to communicate very resepctcul when the accused is a rich white collar criminal. If a bank repeatedly launders money for the Mexican drug cartels (they were caught and warned and did it again) they get away with a slap on the wrist (a fine, no one went to jail). Back to the M.I.C. Military equipment (development !) is very specialized. The government could of course as well spend money for infrastructure, affordable housing, pharma research and what not - but only with military you have that very limited number of companies with proprietary technology that can deliver. and other forms of spending might even include non-profit agencies. Publich education or healthcare system. servicies are deliverd and people earn wages - but no investor will be able to make profits from that. When it comes to a damy, energy plants , building large bridges ... even foreign companies could deliver. That is not going to happen with military equipment .... most of it will be delivered by U.S. companies (a very limited number of companies - in other words forget about "competition. Those very specialized companies spread out their production units in ALL states. To make sure all members of Congress will want the related jobs (which are also safe from being outsourced !) - and money in politics makes sure that the politcians will want the jobs coming from an arms race and not from civilian technology (the latter would be much better for the population). And when there is new technology and high costs of development and so few comapnies that can deliver it - of course there is no competition and endless waste.
    2
  3. So... Russia is to blame for the Brexit vote, right wing nationalism, refugee waves ? - And here I thought the Western "elites" did it all and needed no help to mess up roayally. (Well from their standpoint it is all a roaring success - until the pitchforks are coming). - The West sets the Middle East on fire starting with Bush1 in 1991. Again under Bush2 (asleep at the wheeel or even allowing 9/11) - see 7 countries in 5 years. (Iraq, Libya, Syria). THEN some years later the wealthy nations considerably cut funding to support refugees that are IN the region in neighbouring countries. The EU forces trade deals on Africa that ruin their small farmers. Capitalism had its worst failure since 1929 - and the answer to the GFC caused by the banksters was AUSTERITY. neoliberal EU and U.S. elites discussed new trade deals (as if the old ones had not done enough harm to the masses and completely ignore the resistance of the voters. Austerity created the same results as in the 1930s - the political scene splits up, more decidedly left movements BUT also a lot of rightwing nationalistic xenophobic movements. Mass migration is encouraged, the U.S. has been meddling for centuries ! in Latin America making sure these economies will not do well. So there is mass migration. The EU hastily takes in the former Warsaw pacts states - the nations in Eastern Europe that are somewhat behind in their economc development (but not developing countries they have low crime rates, a well educated population, infrastructure, ...) find themselves in a "union" with states that had the chance to develop over 5 decades and under much more sheltered conditions (only somewhat "free market", lots of protectionism going on after WW2) The new poorer EU members were hit with neoliberalism, right away. From then on the employers of the rich EU states could pit their workforce against the poorer workforce in Eastern Europe. Advantage: the distances are not far, cultural norms are not that different, the workforce was already well educated, and unlike China they WILL respect copyright laws. So the countries of Eastern Europe had a hard time anyway - and then they were hit by the GFC. Millions of people left their countries (in the Baltic states, or in Poland. Many Polish workers went to the U.K. - they were welcome because the employers could use them to suppress wages AND of course there were no provisions or investments made to ramp up housing, healthcare, education, public transportation - on the contrary those fomer publicly funded sectors were also left to financiers and profiteers to make money from it. Surprise, surprise - the Bitish citizens (especially those that were subject to the wage suppression (the "elites" including their and small segment of well paid professionals indulge in blissful cluelessness) did not like that kind of immigration. Brexit was the middle finger to the "system" - like the vote for Trump was (also for many) the middle finger to the U.S. system.
    2
  4. Let me help you: Bush1 obviously hoped that Iraq would provide a pretext for a war - and Saddam Hussein was foolish enough to deliver. - Saddam Hussein had been the darling of the West, he was foolish enough to start a proxy war on Iran in 1979 (with a lot of encouragement of the U.S. and to the delight of countries like KSA) That First Gulf War war would be quick and they would grab some Iranian oilfields near the existing border to pay for the war. -- 8 years later, 1 million people dead, the oil rich monarchies had promised to also fund the Iraqi war. Iran is the natural hegemon in the region and they DO have a capable army already under the Shah (not like Saudi Arabia for instance). Of course under the Shah and with U.S. support the oil rich theocracies could not do anything about them. but when the Ayatollahs took over in 1978 and Iran got on the enemy list of the U.S. .... Iraq accused Kuwait of vertical drilling (accessing Iraqi oilfields accross the border). And I think there were major problems with a pipline in Iraq - so they had the high costs of the lost war (well it was an impasse but in public opinion Saddam had lost, he had started this and it had nothing but bad consequences). So they did not have the needed revenue. The U.S. KNEW about the conflict and the accusations and the diplomatic conflict with Iraq. The U.S. ambassador that was the last to visit Saddam Hussein was left w/o instructions - so she was polite and friendly and talked about the friendship between the U.S. and Iraq and that the U.S. hoped they would find a satisfactory solution for the conflict with Kuwait. Diplomatic fluff. The U.S.KNEW of course that Iraq gathered the troops to invade. The Kuwaiti leadership had warnings in advance they had time to flee. the U.S. abstained to remind Iraq of the consequences it would have for them if they went ahead with the plan. The let the "situation develop organically". - I guess the merchants of war wanted to selll more and new weapons, the generals wanted to test the equipment in live action in a major war. From the standpoint of Saddam Hussein: What was the difference between attacking Iran and attacking a small country like Kuwait. Iraq would have delivered Kuwaiti oil and at low prices. And they did not attack Saudi Arabia, of course not. (a) U.S. ally and client of the U.S. weapons industry and b ) holy sites)
    1
  5. Japan was already preparing to surrender (they just tried to get as favorable conditions as they possibly could - so an armistice and releasing the U.S. POWs could have been done immediately). The SOVIETS had entered THAT war and had set foot on an island. It was over and everyone knew it, and the Japanese had hardly the fossil fuel to fly the kamikaze planes. They used the training machines, with fabric covered wings in the end, they had run out of regular machines. The pilotes - young men mostly - were not only expected to fly into their death (don't you dare come back, people that had been shot down and survived on an island for instance were treated horribly if the Japanese navy picked them up). They had to fly into fog, there was no military intelligence given. - Like WHERE they could find an U.S. ship to attack. Fly, try to find a target on your own, do not come back. you cannot fight a war w/o fossil fuel. And having the supplies (cannon fodder, metals, the industrial workers) will beat high technology. Being able to produce tanks, guns, military vehicles, bombs, ... That won the wars incl. World Wars .. so far. (On rare occasions nations could withstand the overwhelming power with a lot of sacrifices). The U.S. could have crushed Vietnam - which got and absolutely needed help from the Soviets and China. A theoretically possible U.S. victory would have come at even higher costs - for the U.S. citizens = voters. The U.S. propaganda machine could sell a quick and painless illegal war against brown people far away. They even could argue that a retreat would be humiliating and it just needed some more efforts to beat up this poor country (it had started as support of the French to submit their colony Indochine). But Nixon would have needed to sell high suffering and sacrifices to the VOTERS - why their sons were dying and the debt / deficit was getting out of hand - in a bitter war against a nation that could not be a threat to the U.S. if it wanted to. The war machine in the U.S. got beaten by the voters - late but it got beaten. And the main goal in Vietrnam was achieved, to show this and other nations what would happen if they tried "socialism" which the U.S. oligarchs despised and feared (also see the overthrowing of a democratically elected government in Chile in 1973). The war manufacturers had a blast for some time too .... Some commenters say this was about rubber and that the U.s. car industry did not use synthetic rubber then. Can you imagine the insanity: It would have been times hundred cheaper to buy the rubber from the former colony. Or to dedicated 200 scientists to the task to produced synthetic. And other countries (in Africa, and I think in Latin America) had rubber as well. The Vietcong ONLY became so relevant because they were fierce enough to withstand the French/ U.S. assault. If you don't want the most fierce, most ruthless, most determined groups in a country get the upper hand in a country - have some friendly win/win ! trade relationships with them. THAT will make sure the moderate forces in the country prevail. The Vietcong were a fringe group - and did not control the rubber plantations right from the beginning. That would have been good for Indochine / Vietnam AND the U.s. CITIZENS (but not the special interests. The car manufacturers that wanted to have cheap rubber. The French, U.S. and other oligarchs that made money from the plantation / poor farmworker model while exploiting the Vietnamese population. The population getting wealthier would of course have meant they could buy U.S. products as well. And they would have eagerly sought friendly relationships with the U.S. - if only to ward off the Chinese and the Soviets. So win/win for everyone - except the merchants of war, and the oligarchs that make more money of colonialism.
    1
  6.  @alexanerose4820  The U.S. soldiers were informed that they had to come up with kill numbers and it was all but spelled out that that could include civilian casualties. - The soldiers picked up the message, many went decidedely AFTER civilians which were the much easier targets. Having a high kill count (and no one looked critically on what the numbers were based) meant a soldier would get promoted and honored - the higher rank could also mean being moved to a less dangeours place or one with more comforts. The military "leadership" wanted the NUMBERS to supply the NUMBERS to politicians. They knew of course that killing civilians does not give you a military advantage. The policians were hellbent on having war and on damaging Vietnam - and they used the kill count to tell the increasingly opposed voters that the U.S. army was having successes - just a little bit more time (and fallen U.S. soldiers, and increased debt and deficits) would be necessary to WIN. and the narrative of WINNING overrides ethical and to a degree even pragmatic considerations. Winning the war was not necessary (but the U.S. "elites" did not tell THAT to the U.S. population), just punishing a country (that could not be a danger to the U.S. if it wanted to) that dared to rebel against the colonial order (Indochine had belonged to the French till the end of WW2) and that dared to go to the left. And demanded that the resources of the country (mostly land they do not have a lot of mining, fossil fuel, ...) be used For The People.
    1
  7. Yes - but the government spending (incl. for satellites, internet, electronics, or research on Malaria or the Epi Pen ) could have been done and much cheaper - w/o the pretext of military spending. (see Noam Chomsky clip: the role of the military is misunderstood, he was professor at M.I.T. then 90 % military funded, he knows what is going on. Only a FEW very specialized private for profit companies profit from war and surveillance ! spending. They will not have any competition in or outside the country (if the U.S. would build dams or large bridges they could invite for instance Dutch companies to make an offer. The Dutch company could then of course use (partially) the U.S. workforce. Worse: An U.S. company might get the contract BUT their possibility to sneak in huge profits will be limited. Because of competition.
    1
  8. The war on terror es not winable and there is no WELL DEFINED enemy with a chain of command (like the Soviet army and the Soviet Union). The Soviet Union STEPPED DOWN from the Cold War - so the U.S. war machine and the spying agencies found themselves stranded w/o a good enemy to justify the insane spending. Military equipment (development !) is very specialized. The government could of course as well spend money for infrastructure, affordable housing, pharma research and what not - but only with military you have that very limited number of companies with proprietary technology that can deliver. Other forms of government spending might even include non-profit agencies. Publich education or healthcare system. Servicies are delivered and people earn wages, but the profit motive is taken out of the equation (which makes it possible that they work well and cost-efficient even w/o "competition"). BUT: no investor will be able to make profits from that. When it comes to dams, energy plants , building large bridges ... even foreign companies could deliver. That is not going to happen with military equipment .... most of it will be delivered by U.S. companies (a very limited number of companies - in other words forget about "competition" which is the only thing that will keep coroporations straight IF PROFIT plays a ROLE AT ALL in the system. (That is why the non-profit healthcare system work so much more cost-efficient thatn those in the U.S. and Switzerland. Other factors than competition keep them in line). Those very specialized companies spread out their production units in ALL states. To make sure all members of Congress will want the related jobs (which are also safe from being outsourced !) Money in politics makes sure that the politcians will want the jobs coming from an arms race and not from civilian technology (the latter would be much better for the population). And when there is new technology and high costs of development and so few comapnies that can deliver it - of course there is no competition and endless waste.
    1
  9.  @tomw485  Iran would have a perfect DETERRENT with a nuclear bomb - see North Korea. As opposed to Gadhafi who gave up programs to get them - Iran has rational (if religiously fundamentalistic) leadership. (Who is very well aware that a treaty with the West means nothing, and that promises will be broken btw). Iran would NOT ever USE a nuke in a FIRST strike. - let alone against Israel. Which could use some of the 200 - 300 nucelar bombs they do have in retaliation. Israel is a rogue nuclear nation. Gen. Powell speculated in a leaked email they might have 200 - 300 warheads (with material stolen from the U.S. and some related technology was stolen as well).
    1