(Part 2) Top products from r/EndlessWar

> [Top 7 Bible Verses About The Military] (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2016/03/17/top-7-bible-verses-about-military/#jxuXSLrlzGTVmHDQ.99)

> John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.”

> > [Logics of War: Explanations for Limited and Unlimited Conflicts] (https://www.amazon.com/Logics-War-Explanations-Unlimited-Conflicts/dp/0801451868) Page. 147 Para. 3

> > Overall, then, this case fits the commitment problem arguments well. The British had a clear preventive motivation for war, and consistent with that motivation they pursued large war aims that they were reluctant to abandon even in the face of military and diplomatic setbacks. As with the Argentines in the Paraguayan War, however, the Russians wanted to do exactly what the British feared and hence understood the British motivation for fighting. Given this understanding, they had no need to resort to a dispositional explanation for British policy and hence remained open to negotiation throughout the war.

> > > I don't know what keeps these guys going. For me, it's an electric rod within the fragile fibers of the heart. A faith in the things not seen, and a love mid the Bible's truth. Let the Holy Spirit speak wisdom whispers: straight from Torah's all-alive pages. If anyone tears up a Bible, they're doing a disgrace to God. Yah loves us as adopted heirs, and expects that we'll conform continually. So, have supernatural confidence … always bearing your foot upon the Rock. Demons exist friends; alas wielding the full armory's arsenal forth of Ephesians. Trumpeting salvation midst a sea of fiery darts that seemingly bounce back through the Advocate's measure.

History's userface repeats itself within time's epoch. Similar themes etching forward; realizing emotional resolution requires prophecy materiality. And we've seen this ensuing through timely echoes, where something reminiscent keeps acting out its rear head. Ahh, like Nimrod's character revolving over long history course. Seemingly manifested throughout, reappearing as a new ego. Weirdly enough, aliens appear ... man must defend territory after Lamb. Telling extent Genesis occupies many men's minds, never really fully aware nor too attuned towards symbolism's outreaches. Idealism's politically ideological supergroup shan't stand on two rubber points, as it'd decay surely. Universalism recognizes every party, only once discarding individuality. It is an anti Rand world reality, hence everyone's tolerable mentality cues ruin. Secularists' participation therefore suggests Christianity's background impositions (influences). Now, not each amid nation states' play role; eagle's protect isolated between Adonai's supernatural appointment. Thus, throw those dice rolls: see how chaos theory shapes picture. And it has, but the Codex hasn't gotten mixed into that spoil, alive and also continually dispersing salvation's fine salt. Particulars considered, America compels that it'll take upon good will or it'd fall down, akin with nude [material] exposure. Drunken asunder beyond inward gates rather just per Trojan horse. Strategy thencely implies pursuit of an aftermath constantly committed to Al. Maintain vitality's integral oneness and let Yah keep rest. Prayer always among the best strategic arsenals. Beating physical manpower, showcased during David's journey. Use our resources improperly and we'll become chased around borders subsequent perpetuity's silent storm. Spiritual warfare carrying credence whereby actively brought round world's zoning. Mutually entering prayership cascading (sprinkling) dominoes somewhere differently. Christ lining faithful persons as of befitting valuation. Howbeit, melding together as a singular company poses force. Masculinity's decisiveness should secure swift intent. Withal gentle wisdom, as is scripturally accordant. Question choices, however intuitively dispense gifts [that were] given. Deliverer's blessings paving peace access.

These disclosures are incomplete, and leave out some gory details - such as when the CIA sponsored a riot, then got the chief of police to fire on the protesters, all to create the impression that Iran was falling into chaos. The CIA helped design the impression of imminent Communist takeover, in order to justify their actions. They manipulated Eisenhower and Truman, as much as they did the Iranians. All the Shah's Men is a great book on the subject.

What is really sad is, prior to the coup, the US was widely adored in Iran as a non-colonial western power. All that Mosaddegh was asking for was the same partnership that the US had created with Aramco in Saudi Arabia: a 50/50 split of profits between the state and its western concessionaires. If the US had been consistent in applying its values, Iran could easily be an ally today.

As it stands, the only winners to emerge from the CIA's machinations have been the national security apparatus, and the muslim fanatics - in the long term, even the oil industry would have been better off sharing with Iran, rather than pillaging and being thrown out.

Well, you could go back even farther to the Anglo-Soviet invasion during WWII. After that, there was the British oil interests and a daring Kermit Roosevelt who displaced Mossadeq. Check out "All the Shah's men," if really interested in the background to the current US-Iranian relations.

I agree with you completely amigo about the reasons that you give for why we ought to reinstate the draft.

However, with the exception of General McChrystal who is giving signs that he has wandered off the Pentagon ranch, no decision-maker in the Security State is going to promote a draft for exactly the reasons that you cite for favoring the draft. I have referred to Bacevich's book about the reconfiguration of the Pentagon after the disaster of Vietnam in these draft discussions before, and I am doing so again. It was the Pentagon brass, together with the National Security Council that decided that the draft must end and the armed forces convert to professional soldiers in order to give the President the ability to wage war without public opposition.

In my opinion, McChrystal realizes that he has reached the apex of his career in the Security State, so he is stirring up the water to see what floats to the surface. He wants to make a name for himself, and its working as you can see by this example

> China, despite existing as a unified country 4,000 years longer than the US, conspicuously does not have such a history of invading and subjugating the inhabitants of far-flung lands.

This is false. The country we now know as China is the product of millennia of aggressive war, sometimes among several mutually hostile Sinic states, sometimes between a dominant Sinic state and an outside, "barbarian" group.

Whether it's the early days of the Shang dynasty, when the territory of modern China was carved up among a large number of cultures whose remains are meaningful only to archaeologists; or the final dynasty, which expanded China's territory to boundaries never reached before or since; China has historically been an imperialist power.

I'm getting my information from:

China: A History: From Neolithic Cultures through the Great Qing Empire (10,000 BCE - 1799 CE) (Harold M. Tanner)

Amazon

books.google

China: Its History and Culture (W. Scott Morton)

Amazon

books.google

Of course, Wikipedia is helpful too. Maps tell a great deal.

>However, the list posted in the link claims that "the U.S. bears responsibility ... for those resulting from the activities of the Khmer Rouge – a total of about 2.5 million people." This is a wild reach. 

>There's no need to include second order effects from third parties, when the US itself has so much blood on its hands from direct action. Including those 2.5 million really threatens the credibility of the whole list. 

It's worth distinguishing which casualties were directly caused by US Military vs. other parties.

However, I think we should still count these casualties as US-inflicted when they would not have otherwise occurred if the US had not intervened in the first place.

This is even more true when the US enabled the perpetrator's violence via military, financial, or political support. 


Did US imperialists (i.e. those running the war) intend that the Khmer Rouge should kill approximately 25% of the Cambodian population?

Probably not.

But, would the Khmer Rouge even have emerged from obscurity to commit these crimes had the US not invaded Vietnam and bombed Cambodia?

I highly doubt it.


Did the US support the Khmer Rouge in anyway that enabled their atrocities?

I think there is a case to be made that it did.


The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol Pot
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf


Nixon and the Cambodian Genocide
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/


Who Supported the Khmer Rouge?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/16/who-supported-the-khmer-rouge/


Michael Haas, Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: the Faustian pact, New York: Praeger, 1991.
https://www.amazon.com/Cambodia-Pol-Pot-United-States/dp/0275940055


Michael Haas, Genocide by proxy: Cambodian pawn on a superpower chessboard, New York: Praeger, 1991.
https://www.amazon.com/Genocide-Proxy-Cambodian-Superpower-Chessboard/dp/0275938557/

It has nothing to do with Britain/"western imperialism". (And if it did, what kind of way is that to behave? We're not happy with the imperialists, so we're taking it out on our Jewish neighbors? That seems to be infantilizing Muslims.)

The Jews were relatively okay under Muslim rule but the tolerance varied from time to time. There have been pogroms all throughout the centuries, but, for the most part, they were better off under Muslim rule than in Europe, except for a brief time after the Enlightenment and after Napoleon. The Enlightenment didn't last too long, and then anti-semitism took a new turn: to the racial. It progressed from "You can't live among us as Jews" to "You can't live among us" to "You can't live."

Muslim anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the British or the west. It was always there, but it was based more on pity and contempt because of religion than on "race-hatred", which was a European thing.

A good book about this is In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, by Martin Gilbert.

my sentiments precisely https://www.amazon.com/precinct-captains-guide-political-victory-ebook/dp/B01M4IG914/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1478469506&sr=1-1&keywords=precinct+captain%27s+guide+to+political+victory

No one claimed they traveled back in time. They apparently had foreknowledge.