Thursday, February 7, 2019

Fake Arguments for doing the wrong Things

Two articles published on the same day, February 5, 2019 allude to an important trend taking place in America at this time. It boils down to a test of the wills between two cultures.

In fact, it is a tug of war between the fake arguments aimed at keeping the control of America's foreign policy in the hands of the Israel-Washington axis of Jewish dominion over America; on the one hand and the effort of authentic America to reestablish its sovereignty in foreign policy; on the other hand.

On the illegitimate side, you have the Jewish infested Washington Post arguing to maintain America's military and finances in the service of the Jews and Israel. On the legitimate side, you have the Reaganite Cato Institute arguing to cut loose from the Jewish leash that's holding America by the neck.

The Washington Post article came under the title: “Trump is stumbling his way to a vainglorious Middle East retreat,” and was written by David Ignatius. As to the article of the Cato Institute, it came under the title: “Capitol Hill Cowards: Why Congress Is Trying to Undermine Trump's Troop Withdrawal Plan,” and the rather lengthy subtitle: “In Syria Washington chose to enter a civil war of minimal security concern to America. Now lawmakers must pay the price for committing to delusions of foreign-policy grandeur.” The article was written by Doug Bandow and published in The National Interest.

Bearing in mind that the Washington Post article was written to argue that pulling the troops out of Syria would be bad for America — when in reality the intent is for America to remain in Syria to protect Israel — look what flimsy argument David Ignatius came up with to make his point:

“Trump's rebasing-to-Iraq approach, unfortunately, may put US soldiers at greater risk. Right now, the people who kick down the doors of Islamic State terrorists in Syria are our Kurdish-led allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces. If the United States instead does the raids from Iraq, the danger for US personnel will increase. But in Trump world, that's apparently an afterthought”.

Here it is, you have it in black and white. First, David Ignatius said that moving American troops from Syria to Iraq, “may put US soldier at risk.” So you wanted to know how this will happen. To explain himself, Ignatius said that right now, the Kurds are doing the fighting in Syria. OK, you thought, but what will change if and when the US troops move to Iraq? And Ignatius said: “If the US does the raids from Iraq, the danger to them will increase.” Damn it, he said that already, but how and why will this happen? No explanation there. Instead, this is what Ignatius gave out: “In Trump's world that's an afterthought.” And you realize he just insulted your intelligence, and took you for a foolish sucker.

So much for the illegitimate side that's trying to keep America in Syria for the benefit of Israel. As to the Doug Bandow article, here is a condensed version of its content:

“Afghanistan is America's longest war. It has run longer than the Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and Korean War combined. In Syria Washington entered a civil war of minimal security concern to America. Previous forays in Lebanon and Libya turned out badly. Members of Congress sat like potted plants as presidents illegally made war in Libya, Syria, and Yemen and threatened to strike Iran, North Korea, and now Venezuela. Now, however, the Senate has voted to condemn 'the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and Syria.' Comical is the resolution's reference to hard-won gains. More territory and population are under Taliban control. Opium production remains at crisis levels. In Syria the government has won, despite Washington's efforts”.

Realizing that the American public had come to the conclusion the country's involvement in Middle Eastern wars has been a Jewish inspired, ongoing train wreck that lasted several decades, Doug Bandow did not need to engage in vainglorious rhetoric to demolish arguments of the kind put out by David Ignatius. All that Bandow needed to do was layout the facts as they developed on the ground in the Middle East, and put them in context by juxtaposing them with the history of America's involvement in other wars since its inception.

Doug Bandow did just that, and won the argument hands down, fair and square.