How wars are prepared

notimp · Jun 26, 2019

Next step. Acknowledge, that those things happen.

The U.S. military has refused to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths. General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the initial invasion, bluntly told reporters, “We don’t do body counts.” One survey found that most Americans thought Iraqi deaths were in the tens of thousands. But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion.

The number of Iraqi casualties is not just a historical dispute, because the killing is still going on today. Since several major cities in Iraq and Syria fell to Islamic State in 2014, the U.S. has led the heaviest bombing campaign since the American War in Vietnam, dropping 105,000 bombs and missiles and reducing most of Mosul and other contested Iraqi and Syrian cities to rubble.

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/the-staggering-death-toll-in-iraq_partner/

Then find the trade off that makes it necessary.

By what means? Lesser of two evils principle, usually.

cracker · Jun 26, 2019

Two tankers were attacked by ??? Iran rescued at least 23 which can be proven, but both the U.S. and Iran are claiming they both rescued all 44. Obviously, the U.S. could only have rescued — at most — 21 from the one tanker so it leaves the question about who actually rescued them especially since the U.S. lied about rescuing all 44. Even some Japanese news say Iran rescued them all.

notimp · Jun 26, 2019

intermediate step.

You will never get "the truth" in those matters. Even I linked the iranian state intellectual elites side - which is just one PR agency pitching stories against the others basically..

In this instance - the USes PR stories are pretty darn stupid, and you have the head of the democrats on tape stating - that he just came from Trump, having had to tell him, that the dems would not finance a war at this point in time. (Partly because of elections, because - presidents that start wars, are perceived as 'strong'. Read up on the chicago school (Chicago Boys) again if you have doubts.

) When a retaliation strike was immanent.

So this is a rare case of both sides basically agreeing, that yes - the US wanted to start a war - but we thought it was wrong at the time.

Which makes this perfect for looking into methodology.

Missiles or boats striking tankers. Accusing others of shooting down a plane you had flying "alongside their territory". Faking weapons of mass destruction and immanent danger, and telling folks that earlyborn babies are thrown out of their incubators, while crying - unisng a 14 year old for that job in front of an international body - are all PR tactics that were used to start wars in the past. If you want the public on your side - make the story have a heart.

Then kill 2.4 million people over 15 years (Holocaust was 6Mio people - not a fair comparison at all - i repeat - at all, but for purely numbers based deliberations its good to also know that number) - in Iraq - and marvel at the PR effort in the US homeland to simply keep it under wraps, by and I quote "not giving out death toll numbers" because they are bad PR.

Death toll numbers - are what upended one US administration in the Vietnam case - when students revolted - because of that "bad PR" in papers (largely - domestic issues as well). So the US simply stopped giving out the numbers since then. They also stopped calling their wars - wars. (So that international wartime law would not apply. (Torture not permitted.))

And this is how wartime PR works. Liberators that are indirectly responsible for the death of 2.4 million people (by salon.com accounts), are something that the entire arab world doesnt buy anymore. Which limits your negotiation space - so the answer in that case is always - more military force, then negotiating again.

Which is why the Iran war isnt off the table by a longshot. (Troops are currently built up (flown into) in the region.) The real discussions will be held post election season.

And yes, america starts wars. If you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your military - it kind of benefits you to do so. Otherwise - empty spending, right?

Here is a relict of an oddly enough - pretty much accurate - mad man (certifiably), from the first iraq war.

Just for flavor.

And then again - there is pretty much no opposition to anything you want to do in the youtube age, right? And thats how PR works, again.

Assuring majorities.

notimp · Jun 26, 2019

Advanced course.

What do you do as a (free and independent) media outlet in that case?

Answer: There is a period pre starting a war, where media is supposed to represent the different views on the issue. And in general, they kind of do so. The NYT and the WP were heavily criticized the last time the US went into war (the one you started with a PR lie of weapons of mass destruction) - because both of them burried the counter speeches, either in editorials, or in opinion pieces 'in the back of the paper' - causing them accusations of being "pro war".

You always have experts payed on both sides of the issue.

So you cant go by "experts". You need a public forum (media ideally) for them to argue.

Once the war starts - media position shifts entirely - and becomes "megaphone for the administrations stance" - right down to embedded journalism and the likes.

Smaller media outlets might diverge, but not larger ones.

Now you suddenly have to read internatinal media to get a ballanced view - basically. And of course know affiliations on the international stage. Which is a little harder - but not that hard...

The step after that would be - getting into understanding international diplomacy.
(https://www.canada.ca/en/department...-relevant-to-the-case-of-ms-meng-wanzhou.html to start - but its not related at all - just the most interesting incident around right now.

)

cracker · Jun 26, 2019

Don't forget Dan Rather getting canned for speaking his dissenting views about the Iraq war. There were other less notable anchors/journalists that were fired too over not speaking the war machine's narrative.

War is big business. Munitions and equipment contractors get huge payoffs. Private "peace keepers"/mercenaries make a lot (Blackwater/XI/whatever they relabeled it as now). The companies that exploit the areas for the natural resources make a crazy amount. The media gets tons of viewers and are paid mightily by by advertisers — many of whom are the same companies profiting from the war. THIS is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about!

SG854 · Jun 27, 2019

Taleweaver said:
Why do you still bother with what he says? The guy is a notorious liar.

What he did was tear up the nuclear treaty without reason. What he did was impose stricter economic sanctions. What he did was send a drone over their air space(1). What he nearly did was kill 150 innocent Iranians.

Besides...are we talking about Donald Trump here? Y'know...about this high, ski resort tan, blond and grumpy? All I hear him say when asked about a coming war with Iran are things like "I hope not" and "we'll see". Perhaps he campaigned against a war(2), but if so he has now delegated it to guys who actually do want war. And to be honest: I don't see him fire either Bolton or Pompeo anytime soon.

(1): yes, I know the US army claims the thing was over international waters. I'd say the same thing if my 150 million dollar toy was shot down over my neighbor's yard.
(2): I honestly couldn't say. His retarded antics like insulting his opponents and his pledge for a wall took up so much media coverage that "I'm against a war" was somewhat of a mundane footnote that didn't quite make it in international news

It’s hoping he won’t go to war. Fingers crossed. So far he’s done good not attacking Iran. And I want to see him keep doing that.

Bolton and Pompei are begging for war Trump is not giving to them. Even before the drone was shot down since 2017, or very likely even before that, they’ve been wanting to go to war.

Him and Tucker Carlson talk. And this segment on Fox is excellent. I liked that Tucker said attacking Iran will be political suicide, end his presidency and end his chance for reelection. He calls Bolton demented and not normal. And pointing out Neo Cons still wage enormous power in Washington. Trump watches that, he sees what Carlson says and gets advice from him.

cracker · Jun 27, 2019

Trump is egotistical if anything and can be — and has been — flattered into doing things. If enough people whom he admires get him behind closed doors and massage that ego then there is still a good chance of it happening.

notimp · Jun 27, 2019

Slight correction to the above: Oh silly me - it is related.

So Madame Meng Wanzhou is the daughter of the Huawei founder, and the CFO of said company. She was recently arrested after flying into Canada, because the US had formulated an extradition request, for crimes of Huawei not honoring the US sanctions against Iran. And will be extradited to the US.

Bwahaha.

Madame Meng was not warned by Canada that an arrest would have been immanent, when she was on her way to Canada. They just snatched her at the border.

The US basically wanted another bargening piece in China/US relations it seems.

Now Canada is receiving the silent treatment from China.

Taleweaver · Jun 27, 2019

SG854 said:
It’s hoping he won’t go to war. Fingers crossed. So far he’s done good not attacking Iran. And I want to see him keep doing that.

Bolton and Pompei are begging for war Trump is not giving to them. Even before the drone was shot down since 2017, or very likely even before that, they’ve been wanting to go to war.

Him and Tucker Carlson talk. And this segment on Fox is excellent. I liked that Tucker said attacking Iran will be political suicide, end his presidency and end his chance for reelection. He calls Bolton demented and not normal. And pointing out Neo Cons still wage enormous power in Washington. Trump watches that, he sees what Carlson says and gets advice from him.

Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day.

Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).

(1): okay, okay: I'll admit that it's a nice side effect

(2): Trump's attention span isn't long enough to keep focus on the same topic too long, so international crisisses are literally avoided by putting certain documents out of sight

Joe88 · Jun 27, 2019

Taleweaver said:
The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet

Why? He is just a leader of a country of which there are hundreds of other leaders.
This also goes into why is it the USA's responsibility to police the rest of the world?

Taleweaver · Jun 27, 2019

Joe88 said:
Why? He is just a leader of a country of which there are hundreds of other leaders.
This also goes into why is it the USA's responsibility to police the rest of the world?

Easy answers, though that doesn't mean they're pretty:

Why is he the most powerful? Because the USA spends BY FAR the most of their tax money on their army (what was it? More than the sums of #2 to #5 combined ? Something in that regio)

The other question I have to turn around: why does the USA act as if it's their responsibility to police the rest of the world? I have no freaking idea why USA is involved in a bombing of two ships that aren't theirs to begin with, and I have no idea why your drone just HAS TO BE on the border of Iran in the first place. You had a deal with them. Why was this removed again?

SG854 · Jun 27, 2019

Taleweaver said:
Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day.

Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).

(1): okay, okay: I'll admit that it's a nice side effect
(2): Trump's attention span isn't long enough to keep focus on the same topic too long, so international crisisses are literally avoided by putting certain documents out of sight

Ha. I knew you were going to say that about Fox. Carlson isn’t so bad.

They are salivating, slobbering all over the floor, they want war.

Trump doesn’t have all the power in the world. We separated power with the 3 branches of Gov to weaken the Commander in Chief. Trump couldn’t get his boarder wall money for a long time. This is an example of how he can’t do whatever he wants. People hate Trump so much that he’s under a constant watchful eye, they have him in a pigeon hold like no other president before him.

cracker · Jun 27, 2019

As time goes by, there is less and less a separation of power. Money is a big factor in this. If most of the delegates in the different branches of government are being paid off for particular views on issues then there isn't much of a separation is there? Court packing is a thing. When one side pushes through judgeships en masse based on hardcore beliefs then is upends the ability to have fair trials from the bottom up. If there was no money in politics and there was more than the two big "cliques" to choose from there would be a much better division of powers.

The powers of the President were amped up post-9/11. Things such as unilateral strikes without Congressional approval as was required before. Bypassing Congress to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia was just done by declaring it an emergency situation with no recourse.

Trump hasn't done as many shady things as say Nixon, but he has done quite a lot. It is more about the candor brought on by him being so inflammatory as the President and as a private citizen. His demeanor just begs for people to knock him down a few pegs. Also, he is inviting people into his world by being the first President with an online presence as the method to speak to the People. If you don't want exposés on what all you are doing then you should hide away from the limelight on unpopular items — much less gloat about them and leak them yourself.

SG854 · Jun 28, 2019

Taleweaver said:
Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day.

Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).

(1): okay, okay: I'll admit that it's a nice side effect
(2): Trump's attention span isn't long enough to keep focus on the same topic too long, so international crisisses are literally avoided by putting certain documents out of sight

Tucker Carlson literally stopped a war with Iran.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.amp.html

WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.

In recent days, Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host, had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy.

Oh My God Holy Shit.

Thank god Trump doesn’t watch MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC because they are all calling for war. And conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity.

For some reason Tucker Carlson is allowed to tell the truth about wars in establishment news. Some how they allow him to speak his mind about politics.

He was right about the Mueller Report. Right about war with Iran and calling out the lies. And last weeks segment on the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party he killed it, he was laying out truth bomb after truth bomb.

How open boarders Bernie Sanders said is a Koch Brothers proposal, and Tucker Carlson said is the reasons republicans aren’t doing anything about the boarder problem is because they are all bought by the Koch Brothers. And he talks about Koch’s huge influence trying to ban free speech right now and their influence in politics.

How wars are prepared

Well-Known Member

Nyah!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Nyah!

Hail Mary

Nyah!

Well-Known Member

Storywriter

[λ]

Storywriter

Hail Mary

Nyah!

Hail Mary

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum