ISIS - Who da f*ck are you?

[shickingbrits]

Saying that the US government's annual sales of $681bn of war to the US people is incompetence is like saying Apple is a charity that just happens to get really good donations.

Sure, that's incompetent because it's wasteful. There is such a thing as providing too much of something. That was easy.

Your analogy is dumb because a corporation isn't at all a government. One operates by profit-and-loss accounting, the other operates by political clout, rent-seeking, prestige, budget-maximization, etc.

It's wasteful to the citizens, but it's the operating capital of the government. What makes you think that the government doesn't try to maximize their operating capital at the expense of the citizenry?

That you consider my analogy dumb is dumb because the government has some bestsellers. Fear's a big one. If the government can guarantee themselves five years of additional beyond budget funding for a single sarin attack in Syria, then why not?

[BoganGod]

If you ignore the mass killings the Baathists in Iraq and Syria carry out against their opposition your post sounds kinda good.

Correct, saxi seems to have pin pointed your bigot credentials quite well.

Please remember folks, religion is not the problem. Prophets and maths are the problems. If people would just agree on who are prophets, and how many if any prophets are yet to come. Then we would be looking for something else to fight about.

[AndyDufresne]

Yeah, BBS. WHY NOT.


--Andy

[mrswdk]

They're a breakaway group of Arabs who wish to join the Russian Federation. Application pending.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem with your theory is that:

1. You have assumed that I consider the US government incompetent,
2. You assume the US government is incompetent.

You cannot prove 1, because it is not true. I consider the government extremely competent in carrying out its intentions. As to why moves us to 2.

So, how do you explain the failure of post-war reconstruction in Iraq and AFG?

[Note: if you change the goal posts by saying, "well X wasn't the REAL intention of government," then your theory becomes completely arbitrary. For example, whatever contradicts your theory of government, you'll rubber stamp as "not their TRUE intentions," and whatever you want government to intend, you'll simply state that's what they intend].

The only way you can call the US government incompetent is thus: The US government is the most incompetent government, except for all the other governments in the world. The US in the sole superpower, defeating all competitors. How does this equate to incompetence?

Here's a better standard: efficiency. You can also compare government-induced order to other governments (e.g. liberal democratic governments like GER, FRA, etc). And you can also compare government-induced order and govt-provided goods to market provided goods and market provided order.

If the goal is: SUPREME DOMINATION, then I guess you got me there, but I doubt each bureaucrat and politician goes to work and thinks, "how can I make US a global hegemon?"

False flag operations were described in the Art of War, a 2500 year old text which is mandatory reading for all officers in the US military. Is the US so incompetent that it could not pull one off (remember the US has the most competent military in the world) or made of stronger moral stuff (the US have overthrown more than 100 democratically elected governments)?

I'm pretty sure the government can pull off some percent of 'false flag ops', but it doesn't mean that every event you see is the direct result of the US government. "If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like nail," as the saying goes.

You keep saying the government is competent because it topples government. You're overlooking the history of government's incompetence in the arenas which I've already mentioned. If you disagree, please explain how government excels in aiding the poor, creating optimal health care policies, etc.

Or better yet: read some books and get back to me.

BBS, you are like a toy that has run out of batteries that are no longer in production.

I don't really like wild goose chases, but thanks for the offer.

The US government lied about why they were going to Iraq, how they would be received, how long they thought it would take, declared a false victory and now I'm supposed to ignore the intentions that they had in going into Iraq and act as if those lies were not told and so that I'm able to even address the question according to your terms.

Act like history doesn't exist and the government honestly wanted a stable Iraq, now explain how they failed.

Efficiency at what? At receiving payment? At manipulating their population? Why do you feel it is in the government's best interest to create optimal health care policies or aid the poor? Without the threat of poverty, sickness, war or jail, what would motivate your population to finance your policies?

Since you're incapable of addressing anything specifically, I'll just ask you a question:

If a government X can crush and has crushed other civilians and other governments, does this mean that government X is competent?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, BBS. WHY NOT.


--Andy

WHY NOT YOURSELF.

WHY NOT YOURSELF?

[BigBallinStalin]

If you ignore the mass killings the Baathists in Iraq and Syria carry out against their opposition your post sounds kinda good.

Correct, saxi seems to have pin pointed your bigot credentials quite well.

Please remember folks, religion is not the problem. Prophets and maths are the problems. If people would just agree on who are prophets, and how many if any prophets are yet to come. Then we would be looking for something else to fight about.

But what if the rate at which prophets are created is divided by the sum of a beaver's castor sac?

[BigBallinStalin]

Saying that the US government's annual sales of $681bn of war to the US people is incompetence is like saying Apple is a charity that just happens to get really good donations.

Sure, that's incompetent because it's wasteful. There is such a thing as providing too much of something. That was easy.

Your analogy is dumb because a corporation isn't at all a government. One operates by profit-and-loss accounting, the other operates by political clout, rent-seeking, prestige, budget-maximization, etc.

It's wasteful to the citizens, but it's the operating capital of the government. What makes you think that the government doesn't try to maximize their operating capital at the expense of the citizenry?

That you consider my analogy dumb is dumb because the government has some bestsellers. Fear's a big one. If the government can guarantee themselves five years of additional beyond budget funding for a single sarin attack in Syria, then why not?

Hey, dude. Why don't you pause for a second? Ever read Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow? There's this 'part' in your brain which immediately jots down your response, but there's this other 'part' which is like, "whoa, dude, slow down. What did I say earlier? Why is BBS saying this stuff? What were we talking about?" Listen more to that second part, mkay?

[shickingbrits]

I answered your question, everything the US government has said about the war in Iraq was a lie, why should I be forced to ignore this?

You didn't answer mine.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you smell what the Rock is cooking?

[shickingbrits]

Maybe you need to speed up. You are so lost in a labyrinth of your own device that you may miss the boat. You choose to believe what the government says. You choose to believe that it has intentions to carry out what it says. You choose to believe that its failure to do so is through incompetence.

I believe none of those things.

I believe that the government feeds us what ever story will allow them to conduct the activities that they wish to conduct. That these activities serve the governments purposes and not the people's. And that feigned incompetence assuages the publics instinctual desire to trust leadership enough that it will suffice as a cheap means of acquiring vast resources.

You see government as an imperfect body struggling through its incompetence to secure votes. I see the government as a pyramid scheme. And you are holding some shares. At the bottom. Sorry dude.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, if you read my posts about government, you'd know your post about me is false.


Anyway, would you care to demonstrate for the audience how the USG directly created the ISIS--or whatever claim you want to make about how ISIS exists cuz the USA?

[shickingbrits]

So you're intentionally playing devil's advocate to have a laugh hoping that I will get all giddy about your imaginary goose?

And how best can I help you get your jollies off now?

Would you like me to take the angle of 40+ years of fanning the violent radical Islamic flame? Or the blowback angle? Should I say that the weapons and aid in the area fall into their hands and make it indirect funding, or should I point to the pattern of arming insurgents. Or would you like a direct citation? Perhaps a quote from Obama? Should I define words such as fund, arm, blowback, violent?

There is no proof of direct US funding. Funding from its allies, training, indirect funding, indirect arming. There is a repeated pattern of events. There is a history and there are known associates. There are means, motive and opportunity.

Maybe the US learned from providing funding directly to known Al Qaeda operatives in Libya, it's not like they don't learn from their mistakes. Not every one is a battery-less toy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Wow, so instead of providing any evidence, you go on some tirade. At least saxitoxin provided a plausible explanation.

I'm not looking for direct funding because the FIA won't be fast enough. I'm looking for a coherent argument which demonstrates that the USG has directly caused the successes of ISIS (if you disagree, then state whatever it is about this issue CLEARLY, and then state the causal connection to the USG CLEARLY).

If not, then there's the more reasonable approach: it's an unintended consequence of an incompetent government, which you deem competent, so you can't use this excuse. If you keep rolling with your Intended Argument, then you'll have to demonstrate how the US government intended on creating/intentionally funding ISIS in order to create problems in a region which the US... doesn't want problems because it spent trillions on creating puppet governments in order to reduce such problems. Well, whatever the contradictions, have at it, Hauss.

[shickingbrits]

Here's the problem with your stance: "the US... doesn't want problems because it spent trillions on creating puppet governments in order to reduce such problems".

Iraq didn't pose a threat to the US. Saddam had a long-standing relationship with the US prior to Kuwait, a war we convinced him we didn't mind him engaging in. Once he had started the conflict, we flipped the script on him and attacked. We imposed sanctions on him. And his people began to starve. He then did what he could to get food. And it was at this point that his threat to the petrodollar materialized.

If it had been the intention of the USG to have a puppet government in place that reduced such problems, they wouldn't have gone through all that trouble to create them.

In the Clinton years, we saw our defense budgets dropping. Not like Clinton didn't want your money, just with no credible threat available, he couldn't justify getting it. The US needed a threat or the Bush/Obama defense spending would have been reduced to a quarter of what we have experienced. We needed a boogie man to scare you out of some money. The cold war was over, now it's a war in every backpack.

The boys had some new toys they were dying to try out. We could set up such a beautiful information collection system if we only had the money. No threat, no money, no toy.

So we wanted an unstable Iraq government. Someone who we could paint as evil and throw popular support behind. We got that and the money was got.

So why do we still want an unstable Iraqi government? How long do you think it will take people to figure out we are now spending $681bn in a time of peace? No, we need to keep the war coming, but in a cheap and manageable way. Aren't too many places where we could have one. And therefore, once more into the breach.

[BigBallinStalin]

lol, okay. My altruistic job of dealing with morons is complete. TTYL.

[shickingbrits]

I wasn't finished.

"the US... doesn't want problems because it spent trillions on creating puppet governments in order to reduce such problems".

It did not spend trillions creating a puppet government. When the US creates a puppet government, it does so very cheaply. Either you buy these guns from us or they buy these guns from us. Good now here is a shiny new credit card to pay for them.

If you want to talk about efficiency and competence, the ease with which the US creates puppet governments and the benefits they get out of them are the jewels in the nation's crown. Saddam was shitting bricks in a hole he was so scared.

So why not do that? Why not just oust him like we do so quietly all the time? If we need a stable puppet , then why not use the tried and true method? Because the tried and true method is covert and cheap. Can't get money from your peeps in a covert war that ends in a quick bang.

The trillions weren't spent on creating a puppet government, the trillions were paid out to US and Allied contractors, weapons manufacturers and security firms. The money was not spent uplifting Iraq, just lifting the embargo would have done that, it was spent on an increased and semi-privatized military-industrial complex. Trillions that would have not been possible to get with an efficient regime change.

It isn't every day that the US taxpayer is willing to give their money to the government. It has been historically easier to get it while on a war footing, if you can contrive popular support for the war. Perhaps I contrive to find any action that can provide the US with popular support for a war footing as self-inflicted. Too often there is supporting evidence for this, but it is dismissed as incompetence and unintended consequences by a public more willing to justify their own comfortable pew than question the banging going on outside the church. Enjoy the sermon.

[BigBallinStalin]

[insert Star Trek pic]

I'm done with people who refuse to challenge their own views.

[AndyDufresne]

Enjoy the sermon.

Yeah, BBS, ENJOY THE SERMON.

Edit:

[insert Star Trek pic]

I'm done with people who refuse to challenge their own views.

Now you are learning.


--Andy

[saxitoxin]

I wasn't finished

now you know what it's like to be BBS' girlfriend

[shickingbrits]

Not quite, he doesn't pay me by the hour.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not quite, he doesn't pay me by the hour.

Of course. I only need 0.1 to 5 minutes, so paying by the hour would be stupid for me (and stupid for you to turn down, but whatev).

[a6mzero]

Not quite, he doesn't pay me by the hour.

LMFAO

[Phatscotty]

Know wuts funny? Even Al-Qaida describes them as "too violent"

Good to see you post

Wutz funnier? My Commander-in-Chief told my country a few months ago that ISIS was the JV (junior varsity) team of extremism, and that's why he was not worried about them, but that's partly because the political narrative at that time was that Obama ended the war in Iraq and that Iraq was going to be a stunning success story for people in his party to run on in the next election. Oh yeah, and the Caliphate certainly most definitely is just a conspiracy.




So, dewd, check your sources, cuz my leader would never lie to our people, certainly not for political gain

BTW, have you ever seen the movie 'Now You See Me'?

[GoranZ]

Connections between ISIS and American government...

http://madworldnews.com/video-john-mcca ... ling-isis/



Original story from 2013... http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/j ... z35ODZLRSZ

Is American government made up of idiots? If no the connections between American government and Al Qaeda is more then obvious.