April 7, 2010

"Upheaval in Kyrgyzstan Could Imperil Key U.S. Base"

Here's the #1 most important news story on NYTimes.com tonight:

Upheaval in Kyrgyzstan Could Imperil Key U.S. Base
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY

Protests appear to have overthrown the government, calling into question the fate of a U.S. air base that supports the war in Afghanistan.

Whatever will America do without our key base in Kyrzygsrgtz ... ah, to hell with it. If I can't spell, I can't care about it.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

98 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm sure T99 will be along to explicate.

Anonymous said...

Paging Whiskey in T-Minus 10, 9, 8, we have a go for main engine start, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Anonymous said...

Hilarious.

Do you really think we can't hold that base against rioting Kyrgies?

Michael T. Golden said...

I don't care any more than you do about the Kyrgyzstanis and their inferior potassium exports, but maybe we can agree that it's good that the U.S. has an airbase there. If we didn't, only the Russians would, and I don't see how that's good for anyone. Those 'stan countries can put the hurt on us by harboring terrorism, so I like it that they know we have nearby air power that can put the hurt on them.

I don't say nice things about the administration very often, but in this instance its realpolitik is wise.

On the other hand, how dense was Obama for thinking his missile defense policies would make Russia like us? That story shows, if we didn't already know, that they oppose us as much as they ever did.

Kylie said...

Spell it? I couldn't even identify it. When I saw the place name Kyrgyzstan, I thought it was just some "ethnic" spelling of "Kurdistan".

Mark said...

Well why the hell do I need to understand Kyrgyz...whatever...when I really shouldn't have to understand countries I can spell perfectly well, like Afkanistan and Irack?

We need the base in KY-stan so we can fix AF-stan so that we can keep the terrorists out of Ameristan? I think I can come up with a better way.

Tomorrow's Onion headline: "Upheaval in Kyrgyzstan could imperil Indian-American spelling bee favorite"

Whiskey said...

That's a dumb comment.

Kyrgystan is the main supply base for Afghanistan, and also the main air support base. For example, Michael Yon, the combat correspondent and blogger, reports that all the Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers are transported into Afghanistan from there.

We don't need the base, or Kyrgsystan (or however the hell you spell it) as long as we don't care about our troops there. Or pull out of Afghanistan. After all, what could possibly GO WRONG?

Its not as if a massive defeat (no other way to spin us pulling out of Afghanistan) and Afghanistan as a free, safe Jihadi base could lead, to oh I dunno, mass casualty terror attacks on New York City. Or destabilizing Pakistan even more, to the point of a few nukes go missing.

Everyone loves us! Obama is a Savior!

This is Steve's strategic blind spot -- wishful thinking. A Hermit Kingdom North Korean style America can afford not to care. Since America is target #1 and Obama just ruled out Nukes in response to mass casualty attacks with chemical or bioweapons or cyberwar (like crashing America's power system), we better have a huge whacking great military all over the place.

Obama has ruled out any improvements to our nukes and any real use. So we better "invade the world" and whack the hell out of people because that is all we have and all we will have.

Anonymous said...

Anon(s) beat me to it!

I await Whiskey's explanation as to why Krhgych.. is a key ally and we are imperiled when we allow it's sovereign... blah, blah, blah.

Whiskey, you go and sort this out on your own OK? Or take your Rambo crowd with you.

I'm tired of invading worthless tracts of desert and accomplishing nothing.

Paleo Truth Squad said...

"I'm sure T99 will be along to explicate."

Yes, but Smedley Butler has already explained our bellicose foreign policy.

Eagle said...

Why the hell would anyone listen to an idiot Zionist neocon like Whiskey explain why we're in Central Asia (to stop teh muzlin terrists!) when guys like Brzezinski who actually run things and wield influence explicitly tell us why?

You can also read Mark Hackard's recent pieces over at Alternative Right that explicate the rationale and strategy behind the American involvement in Central Asia:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/war-for-the-new-silk-road/

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/us-policy-elites-and-chechnya/

Steffers said...

Thank god - in Finnish the name of the place is spelled Kirgisia. Much simpler.

Christopher Paul said...

Not knowing much about Kyrgyzstan, I checked out some of the photos and satellite images on Google Earth.

Bishkek seems like a pleasant enough place. Put it this way, it doesn't look like the hellhole I expected it to be.

l said...

The Times' putting things into some sort of perspective reminds me of the scene in Full Metal Jacket where the Stars & Stripes reporters are told that the Tet Offensive has started. Joker asks "Does this mean no Ann Margaret?"

teacher.paris said...

Since my only friend in Afghanistan was killed there two weeks ago, I no longer have any interest in the place.
His enlistment had been extended against his will after two years in Iraq.

kritisk_borger said...

Well, I believe America is fighting a lost cause in Afghanistan anyway so does it really matter if they lose that air base? The Afghans don’t want western style democracy and they certainly don’t want to shape their country on the American model. And the US lost the war in Vietnam but it didn’t weaken the country in any measurable way. Why would it be any different with Afghanistan?

I think the best option in the case of Afghanistan would be to fence off the entire country, make sure that no one gets in or out, and then come back in 10 years time and inspect the damage. Come to think of it maybe this tactic can be implemented in Africa and the Middle East too?

Anonymous said...

Everybody must read Kristoff this morning in the Times about Zimbabwe.
As far as this post, there is a valuable middle area between imperialism and isolationism.

CamelCaseRob said...

Why do we allow non-English speakers to dictate the spelling of words in English? It is pronounced Kirgeestan (accent on last syllable), and by god, that's the way I'm spelling it.

eh said...

We can hope that many women will be involved in this movement/these protests, and they'll be as good or better looking than similar women in Iran, and that fotos and video will find their way into US media (googling left as an exercise). Whereupon we will have learned something about Kyrgyzstan, even if some of us (calling Jay Leno) cannot find it on a map, let alone spell it correctly.

wth said...

We must ensure that Iraqis, Pashtuns and Iranians never again hijack planes and commit acts of terroism agains the US.

We must support our dependable allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And support the rights of muslims in european countries like Germany.

Grumpy Old Man said...

My Central Asian pony-trekking vacation is ruined by this rioting and Steve just sits there mocking.

What will happen to our supply of kumiss (fermented mare's milk)?

Mr. Anon said...

Good thing we have those bases in Afghanistan - our plucky stable little central asian ally - so that we can quell the latent jihadist tendencies in Kyrgyzstan. That's why we put bases in Afghanistan in the first place, isn't it? I don't know - it was all so long ago.

"Whiskey said...

Its not as if a massive defeat (no other way to spin us pulling out of Afghanistan) and Afghanistan as a free, safe Jihadi base could lead, to oh I dunno, mass casualty terror attacks on New York City. Or destabilizing Pakistan even more, to the point of a few nukes go missing."

We've been in Afghanistan for eight and one half years now, and the government we installed is talking about negotiating with the Taliban (who themselves are not all dead). We have been massively defeated there.

Still haven't joined up to do your part yet either, have you? When are you going to do some bleeding for the cause?

Anonymous said...

off topic but more fodder for the race doesn't exist crowdd - pc dr. weil suggests blacks should not take as much vitamin d as whites
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/WBL02189/Vitamin-D-and-Skin-Color.html

tial said...

I can't spell Massaschutstets.

Can we withdraw from it too? Please?

John Mansfield said...

According to the Superman comic books, if Kyrgystan can be tricked into saying its name backwards, it will disappear and return to the fifth dimension.

Sad American said...

Here is a nice quote from a founding Neocon which pretty much sums up why Kyrgystan and the other 'stans are so important.

There was, to be sure, one thing that many of even the most passionately committed American Zionists were reluctant to do, and that was to face up to the fact that continued American support for Israel depended upon continued American involvement in international affairs– from which it followed that an American withdrawal into the kind of isolationist mood that prevailed most recently between the two world wars, and that now looked as though it might soon prevail gain, represented a direct threat to the security of Israel.
-Norman Podhoretz 1979

Anonymous said...

A Hermit Kingdom North Korean style America can afford not to care.

OK, where can I sign up to be a candidate for the American Hermit Kingdom Party?

We have the best climate, the best collection of natural resources, and still an acceptable percentage of competent. trustworthy people (for now, anyway). Bring the troops home, kick the non-citizens out, and tell the rest of the world to go to the well-deserved dysfuncional Hell it is in the process of making.

Sure, the rich globalists won't be as rich, but on balance I think Hermit Kingdom America would do just fine, thanks.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Whiskey - google Kyrgyzstan map. Wait, I'll do it for you.

Kyrgzitisaucestan is landlocked in the mountains two countries NORTH of Afghanistan. How does the base in Kirkorianstan get supplied? Simple: they fly the shit in from CentCom in Qatar. But then, why not just land in Afghanistan instead? (I mean, I'm sure they're not supplying Kyjellystan from Ashcanistan, then turning right around and ferrying material back because that would be expensive and stupid. Right? Right?)

Eagle has answered this, and it is straight from the horse's mouth.

Anonymous said...

A Hermit Kingdom North Korean style America can afford not to care.



I'm inclined to think that some sensible middle-ground must exist between a North Korean-style hermit kingdom and the modern Borg-like America with its tentacles in every corner of the globe. How about we go back to what American foreign policy used to be before WWII?

Anonymous said...

America has a global empire of bases. The number is between 700 and 1,000 depending on the definition. It is the new imperialism maintaining American global political and economic hegemony. May I suggest ANTIWAR.COM if anyone is interested.

Chief Seattle said...

Kyrgikistan is the key to Afghanistan. Afhanistan is the key to Pakistan. Pakistan is the key to South Asia. And South Asia is the key to everything!

When the Soviets had enough nukes and ICBMs to destroy Western Europe in 45 minutes, that was scary. Like can't sleep at night scary. These "islamofacists" chanting in a circle holding their AKs are a pretty pale enemy by comparison. They're kind of like the IRA of the 1970s- they're dicks, but they kill less people than coal mines.

headache said...

I wonder if this is not just another one of those "Orange Revolutions" being turned upside down by the Kremlin as it reasserts its sphere of influence. What's a US base doing there anyway? Why can't the US just fly from an Afghan base? What's so hard about building a landing strip in Afghanistan?

But maybe this was just about curtailing Russian influence. I'm sure Pat Buch. will have a proper take on this.

headache said...

Whiskey sez: Its not as if a massive defeat (no other way to spin us pulling out of Afghanistan) and Afghanistan as a free, safe Jihadi base could lead, to oh I dunno, mass casualty terror attacks on New York City.

I knew it! Those leggy, unreachable, alpha-chasing alpha shicksas who dare to withold their goodies from the likes of Whiskey, now have the gall to nuke NYT.

Marc B said...

It's a shame one of the worlds most beautiful Alpine areas of the has so much instability. Geographically, it's the crown jewel of Central Asia. Culturally it's nothing to brag about.

"when guys like Brzezinski who actually run things and wield influence explicitly tell us why?"

Brzezinski's influence during the Carter administration can easily be linked to our current conflict with our former puppet regime, the Taliban. The guy is an asymmetrical war-monger, with a deep seated hatred for the Russian people, not necessarily Communism. He brags about it in his book "Between Two Ages". He is among the most powerful players in the Great Game.

Anonymous said...

Reading around a little on the matter, it appears as if the current president of Kyrgystan was elected in a rather-rigged looking election full of ballot-box-stuffing and intimidation. He is accused of leading the republic back to Soviet-style authoritarianism. I dont think this "upheaval" has anything to do with our airbase there, but any sovereign nation isn't going to want another country's air base on their land.

Would -we- appreciate a Chinese air base just outside Portland, Oregon? (or Portland, Maine, so the Chinese cockpit-jockeys could oogle our topless women marching for their "rights"?)

The opposition leader in Kyrgystan, a dude named Atambaev, looks like a perfect half-Caucasian/half-Asian hybrid human being, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/world/asia/24kyrgyz.html. He's kind of handsome, in a early Clint-Eastwoody-way. Maybe if he made more TV commericals in the West promising Kyrgystani support of one particular middle-eastern-nation, he'd get unexpected funding for his next election from sources all over the globe. I know, I know.....what a S.O.B I am, etc.

Anonymous said...

One more thing......


We all as readers have probably missed one of Steve's great truths: If only a certain segment of our population had a favorite college sports program to root for, so much less of their time would be directed in "rooting for" one particular country and all its even barely concievable possible potential external threats. Could you imagine how different our foreign policy might be? How different out defense and foreign aid policy might look? How much smaller our national debt might be?

We are all going to "get interested" in something in life, and root for it, pull for it, cheer it on, or cheer against it. For many men in the United States, thats a pro football or baseball team. In Europe its soccer. For women, its status-competition against other females, or status competition for their heroines (favorite female celebrities) against their other status competition (other female celebs). For many Jews in the United States its the security of Israel, no matter what it takes. If Israel had been founded in 1948 alongside South Africa...or in Uraguay, or in Greenland, or Siberia, so much would be so different now. But its right in the middle of the last place on earth that it could peaceably exist with its neighbors...Islam's back yard, hence the profoundly inordiante attention spent on this one nation's prospects.

Anonymous said...

Okay, maybe I missed something but the reason the 911 perps were able to fly into NYC buildings was really more about incompetent and ineffectual immigration and airport security and not because Bin Laden happened to be hiding in Afghanistan. If he weren't there, then he would have been somewhere else.

I just don't get the whole Afghanistan thing.

Who cares if they harbor terrorists or terrorist wannabes?

If we keep terrorists out of the USA, problem solved.

Anonymous said...

Kyrgyzstan should be famous for its great lake, Issyk Kul. Check it in Wikipedia, guys. Tourism-wise, that's a fantastic place to visit.

gwood said...

The 911 attackers trained in Florida. If only we had an Air Force base there...

Dennis Dale said...

Well, obviously the place is suffering from a drought of vowels.

Anonymous said...

I think the best option in the case of Afghanistan would be to fence off the entire country, make sure that no one gets in or out.

Umm. We would need a base in Kyrgyzstan to accomplish that.

Chief Seattle said...

Ok all you geopolitical whizzes. How does a base in Kyrgyzstan help us get to Afghanistan? It's completely landlocked, further from the Indian Ocean than Afghanistan, and it doesn't even border Afghanistan.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who runs Kyrgyzstan wants to get paid rent by the US. The End. On another note there are great photos of the protests: beatings, burnings, bagsticks...

jack strocchi said...

Hopefully the US can exit the whole Trashcanistan area ASAP. Sure we need to support our allies there. But we can use the Drones to do that.

Its really no country for organic men.

Victoria said...

.... it's good that the U.S. has an airbase there. If we didn't, only the Russians would, and I don't see how that's good for anyone.

Why is it better for the world that the most crazed Rogue State has a base there, rather than Russia?

Those 'stan countries can put the hurt on us by harboring terrorism,

Is that a fact? You mean they can reach Arizona or Utah from there? Why the hell should we have bases anywhere, including Krzxkgzkgz?

I like it that they know we have nearby air power that can put the hurt on them.

Oh, boy, Yippee! Let's bomb their asses! USA! USA! USA! Will you be suiting up and going over there to help our young soldiers, Mr. Keyboard Warrior?

Victoria said...

Bring the troops home, kick the non-citizens out, and tell the rest of the world to go to the well-deserved dysfuncional Hell it is in the process of making.

AMEN!

Would -we- appreciate a Chinese air base just outside Portland, Oregon?

Isn't it amazing that a sane question like this elicits no sane response? When right wing crazies are asked this question, they just lower their heads, and start babbling idiocy, sometimes winding up reciting Bible verses. That's all they've got.

Nuking US Troops said...

I don't think anyone here grasps the strategy that Obama is deploying. The movement of troops into Afghanistan and the recent announcement refusing nuclear retaliation is not designed to encourage an attack on New York City or Israel.

It is designed to encourage a nuclear attack on US troops in the Middle East.

Remember, the military is a mostly Republican institution. The vast majority of combat-trained trigger-pullers are white guys from small, red-state towns. Obama expanded the war into Afghanistan to move these political enemies into a less densely populated, less built-up region where the Muslim loss of life and infrastructure will not be so great.

Once a sizable chunk of men and material have been moved to this wasteland, the Iranian suicide bomber can then do his job.

Obama's announcement that the US will not retaliate against a nation is a signal to Iran that US troops can now be attacked with impunity and that the Iranians should now deploy their nukes against these troops.

Once America can no longer deploy boots on the ground, America's foreign policy will have to be more limited. Plus, a sizable political threat has been removed.

Either Whiskey's solution to bomb Iran now should be implemented or the war has to end. If not, then we will see a massive loss of life in the Middle East

dr kill said...

I once knew a whore from Bishkek,
Her home was a terrible wreck.
So in the State of Dubai
On her back she did lie, for
Cash only, not credit or check.

Then she married my mate and moved to Riyadh with us.

Whiskey said...

Afghanistan is different from Vietnam because Muslims are not Vietnamese. As it worked out, we DID lose influence and power, and the Soviets were more aggressive in places like Afghanistan and through proxies like Saddam. Which given the US dependence on cheap oil and the Soviet Dependence on expensive oil had serious repercussions.

Losing in Afghanistan is basically confirmation that Osama was RIGHT: Muslim adventurers can hit America without any real consequence. That was a problem under Jefferson when 25% of the Federal budget was devoted to paying off Barbary Pirates. With a nuclear and fracturing Pakistan (filled with adventuring Jihadis who figure nuking an American city is a good way to get power) and aggressive Iran which needs expensive oil, it is a recipe for disaster.

It's not 1890. We don't have the MARGIN. Even places like Pakistan have nukes. I find it strange and bizarre that Steve and his readers who make much of race realism and would not disarm the police in the face of say Ghetto or Barrio dwellers, argue for essentially the same thing with everyone in the world getting "equalizers."

Whiskey said...

You can't get a hermit America. You could not get it in the 1790's, when US ships were hijacked and seamen taken hostage.

You can't restore the Nuclear Deterrent. Its already GONE. Obama killed it. Even assuming (a big assumption) Obama leaves office in 2013, we would require about 6 years of concerted national effort to recreate the nuclear deterrent, since the Cold War guys are dying or retired, and Obama has forbidden modernization of nukes. What we have will decay, quickly.

The argument people are making are akin to withdrawing all police from Ghetto and Barrio places and disarming them in nice, safe White areas, in the hope that if we are nice, other people will not come and simply take. Look at the Flash Mobs in Philly, for the lack of deterrence and policing.

Yes it sucks that America has to do this, but cheap Chinese sneakers or Korean flat screens have their prices. As do nuclear equalizers.

Drones don't give you human intel. Who's switching sides. Who can pass on info. Who is related to whom, needs money, can be blackmailed.

As far as Israel goes, it is already on its own. Obama has made it clear he will shoot down any attack on Iran and wants Iranian nukes. He's prevented Israeli nuclear scientists from getting US visas. Israel has nukes for just that reason. An Israel on its own, without any US support, is likely to act with surprise and ruthlessness. After all, Iran has said they'll wipe them out and has good reasons (intimidation of the Gulf) to do so.

Whiskey said...

Full Metal Jacket was a movie, not reality. Marines who were really there wrote of their experience. Tet was very ugly but the Marines did not panic and wiped almost all the Viet Cong out.

At attack on US troops with nukes is not very wise. Cities are the most vulnerable, or single bases. But US troops are so spread out in Afghanistan, and well supported from other areas like Bishkek air bases, that it has less effect (it would kill a lot) than you would think.

The Japanese never killed 3K people in Manhattan. Afghanistan matters because it was a place where Jihadis could organize under protection of a State. All we could do was launch strikes from the Indian Ocean, that did nothing.

I don't know why repeating Clinton's failed policies, which led to 9/11, is considered "smart." Particularly adding in nukes or now chem/bioweapons.

Anonymous said...

Do Whiskey and Michael T. Golden work for the military-industrial complex?

How else to explain silly arguments like "maybe we can agree that it's good that the U.S. has an airbase there. If we didn't, only the Russians would, and I don't see how that's good for anyone. Those 'stan countries can put the hurt on us by harboring terrorism."

Are these people psychotic, or do they have God complexes or what?

Anonymous said...

"I'm inclined to think that some sensible middle-ground must exist between a North Korean-style hermit kingdom and the modern Borg-like America with its tentacles in every corner of the globe."

Obviously true, which is why is chickenhawks like Michael T. Golden and Whiskey are forced to frame it so black-and-white.

Dahlia said...

Steve,
I never would have guessed that a short, boring military affairs post could challenge a why-members-of-nationalityx-are-such-gosh-darned-geniuses post for most comments.

In two words: Whiskey bait.

TGGP said...

I hope we all remember how Osama bin Laden continued to attack the Soviets after they withdrew from Afghanistan, just as the Viet Cong started terror attacks in America after we pulled out from there.

Obama hasn't changed anything nuke-wise. Daniel Larison has explained the issue more thoroughly than he should need to.

Anonymous said...

jack strocchi said...Its really no country for organic men.

Superb Jack, I really did laugh out loud!

Michael T. Golden said...

“chickenhawks like Michael T. Golden and Whiskey are forced to frame it so black-and-white.”

Chickenhawk? I’m not even a hawk. I believe in a shrewd mixture of soft and hard power. I think most reasonable people do.

“If we keep terrorists out of the USA, problem solved.”

Easier said than done, I’m afraid. And, it wouldn’t even solve our problems, because we have assets, interests, and countrymen overseas that terrorists can strike. It has been that way literally since the beginning. If anyone thinks America can just bunker down inside its borders, I’m afraid you’re wishing for a fantasy world that can never exist.
That doesn’t mean we need to try to nation-build, democratize, or rule far-off countries like an empire would. It just means we need overseas bases from which we can defend our interests and deter attacks.

“Chief Seattle said...Ok all you geopolitical whizzes. How does a base in Kyrgyzstan help us get to Afghanistan? It's completely landlocked, further from the Indian Ocean than Afghanistan, and it doesn't even border Afghanistan.”

We go by air, chief. The base is so useful because it’s equipped for these.

“Will you be suiting up and going over there to help our young soldiers, Mr. Keyboard Warrior?”

What difference would it make if I did, Ms. Ad Hominem Arguer? It wouldn’t bear on the issue of whether or not maintaining this base is a good idea.

“Oh, boy, Yippee! Let's bomb their asses! USA! USA! USA!”

I don’t want to bomb anyone, I just want to deter countries that might harbor terrorism with the threat that they could be bombed if they do. I thought deterrence was a pretty basic principle.

“You mean they [terrorists] can reach Arizona or Utah from there [Central Asian countries]?”

Terrorists supported by Al Qaeda, which was harbored by Afghanistan, did reach New York, and they killed 3000. If Al Q. hadn’t been able to recruit and train openly in A-stan, the hijackers would have had a much harder time.

“Would -we- appreciate a Chinese air base just outside Portland, Oregon?”

No, but we should base our policy on our own interests, not on what China would appreciate. China will in turn act in furtherance of its own interests, (which probably do not include trying to build a base in Oregon.)

Ronduck said...

I have to agree with Whiskey on this.

Truth said...

"Oh, boy, Yippee! Let's bomb their asses! USA! USA! USA! Will you be suiting up and going over there to help our young soldiers, Mr. Keyboard Warrior?"

Boom!...Pow!...One...Two...Three....Four...Ten! The winner, and new HBD Champiiiiooonnn....

Anonymous said...

reply to WTH;

Your post is absurd. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Our "good allies".

Whisky - You are just crazy!

eh said...

OT

The BBC asks: Why do Finland's schools get the best results?

It's a mystery.

Richard Hoste said...

With a nuclear and fracturing Pakistan (filled with adventuring Jihadis who figure nuking an American city is a good way to get power)

LOL, whatever you say.

Thanks Whiskey. After the first 1,756 times you explained your theories about geopolitics and how the world has changed I had my doubts, but this last time was so eloquent that I'm convinced you're right.

Anonymous said...

Ronduck,

I'm not surprised at all that you agree with Whiskey here.

You spend half your time on that "h2oreuse" blog.

Victoria said...

Nuking US Troops wrote:
The vast majority of combat-trained trigger-pullers are white guys from small, red-state towns.

I think that the general thesis in your post re Obama's intention is over the top, but the above is true. As a black, I'm still waiting for the day to hear whites finally acknowledge that they are the primary suckers when it comes to sending their sons off to die. When is this going to stop? And is it true that there's a biological imperative in Anglo-Euros to follow military commands, no matter who those commanders are, as Jim Webb suggests in his book? He limits the syndrome to Scots-Irish, but I think it's spread through the European blood stream further than that.

It wasn't enough for whites to lose hundreds of thousands of men in WWII, Korea, Vietnam. No, they've just got to keep it going. "We're tough, we're brave, we're patriotic!" We're suckers! Stop it, already! If white men refuse to become fodder, the ethnics won't be so willing to suit up either.

Bruce Banned said...

Do Whiskey and Michael T. Golden work for the military-industrial complex?
Either that, or the CIA psy-ops department has developed a superb automated Neocon web-bot.

Dennis Dale said...

Full Metal Jacket was a movie, not reality. Marines who were really there wrote of their experience. Tet was very ugly but the Marines did not panic and wiped almost all the Viet Cong out.

A movie based on a book by a combat Marine and adapted in part by a combat correspondent (Michael Herr, whose "Dispatches" is considered by many to be the best book written on combat in Vietnam) both of whom were really there and "wrote of [their] experience." They didn't nearly "wipe out the Cong" either, but did kill quite a lot of NVA soldiers--for people who don't know the difference, the Cong were the S. Vietnamese insurgents and the NVA is the N. Vietnamese Army (an old salt once told me--bravado for him, perhaps, but true--that the Cong were "easy to kill" but the NVA were very hard to kill).

Yes Tet was a military failure, but to quote the Vietnamese general: "that is true, but it is also irrelevant".

Yes, diehards lament this as the North Vietnamese winning the war in Washington and through American public opinion but public resistance to pointless wars is a good thing (and as we all know, Communism thus became unstoppable, investing one nation after another until...; what little faith some have in our system, still, that they're convinced it must be defended by the sword in perpetuity in every remote corner lest it be overtaken by the charms of the Soviet lifestyle).

Here's something else for conservatives to consider: without the war and opposition to it the sixties would have looked very different, and much of the radicalism engendered there and still with us would have found no home.
The first imperative of defending against the corrosive efforts of leftists should be don't make them right. And if they're right, they're right.

It's beside the point, anyway, as neither film nor book are concerned with the success of Tet, but with the experience of an individual platoon. I didn't see who Whiskey was responding to with this, but I don't see the film portraying "panic" within that platoon but the disastrous effects of poor leadership.

"Charlie's definitely got his shit together, but we're still gettin' some really good kills here."
--Captain Touchdown;

"Clean out your headger, new guy. You think we waster gooks for freedom? This is a slaughter."
--Animal Mother, Full Metal Jacket

Dennis Dale said...

Full Metal Jacket was a movie, not reality. Marines who were really there wrote of their experience. Tet was very ugly but the Marines did not panic and wiped almost all the Viet Cong out.

A movie based on a book by a combat Marine and adapted in part by a combat correspondent (Michael Herr, whose "Dispatches" is considered by many to be the best book written on combat in Vietnam) both of whom were really there and "wrote of [their] experience." They didn't nearly "wipe out the Cong" either, but did kill quite a lot of NVA soldiers--for people who don't know the difference, the Cong were the S. Vietnamese insurgents and the NVA is the N. Vietnamese Army (an old salt once told me--bravado for him, perhaps, but true--that the Cong were "easy to kill" but the NVA were very hard to kill).

Yes Tet was a military failure, but to quote the Vietnamese general: "that is true, but it is also irrelevant".

Yes, diehards lament this as the North Vietnamese winning the war in Washington and through American public opinion but public resistance to pointless wars is a good thing (and as we all know, Communism thus became unstoppable, investing one nation after another until...; what little faith some have in our system, still, that they're convinced it must be defended by the sword in perpetuity in every remote corner lest it be overtaken by the charms of the Soviet lifestyle).

Here's something else for conservatives to consider: without the war and opposition to it the sixties would have looked very different, and much of the radicalism engendered there and still with us would have found no home.
The first imperative of defending against the corrosive efforts of leftists should be don't make them right. And if they're right, they're right.

It's beside the point, anyway, as neither film nor book are concerned with the success of Tet, but with the experience of an individual platoon. I didn't see who Whiskey was responding to with this, but I don't see the film portraying "panic" within that platoon but the disastrous effects of poor leadership.

"Charlie's definitely got his shit together, but we're still gettin' some really good kills here."
--Captain Touchdown;

"Clean out your headger, new guy. You think we waster gooks for freedom? This is a slaughter."
--Animal Mother, Full Metal Jacket

Mark said...

The BBC asks: Why do Finland's schools get the best results? It's a mystery.

It isn't just that Finland lacks a "vibrant minority" - it's that it's also fortunate to lack a Finnish-speaking "vibrant minority" culture, a culture that's polluting whether one embraces the vibrant minority or not.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey:

You make some good points. And you are right this isn't the 1800's or 1700's or whatever - back then European-people governments used to actually do what's best for European people. Now we have institutions which are afraid of European majorities and which actively work to surpress any Euro-based national sentiment - and yet we are suppose to be all charged up about some empire building misssion. I don't know about you, but I've got a little Afganistan right in my own neighbourhood - and it's growing fast. And you are telling me I should be bombing them there? Why - so that I can be even more resented when I am small minority AT HOME? What you people are pushing no longer makes sense because we are no longer a country, we are an empire. And we are decaying and falling fast - everyone knows that - they are literally laughing at us in China. One of these days the rest of the rednecks are going to figure it out too.

Anonymous said...

"Chickenhawk? I’m not even a hawk. I believe in a shrewd mixture of soft and hard power. I think most reasonable people do."

Comrades: always remember to sound reasonable when advocating slaughter.

And be sure to claim you do not advocate slaughter, only a shrewd mixture of soft and hard power, or some such phrasing.

Onward, my comrades! The glorious revolution awaits!

Chief Seattle said...

"We go by air, chief. The base is so useful because it’s equipped for [C-17 globemaster]."

Call me naive, if we're going to fly stuff everywhere at the cost of thousands of dollars per ton, why wouldn't we just put the base in Afghanistan? Only a cost-plus military contractor would see the logic in flying something into a base 1000 miles away from operations. No wonder it costs a million dollars per year per soldier to run that war. If we were fighting any real enemy instead of just harassing some poppy seed growing mountain people this type of nonsense would bankrupt us overnight.

travis said...

Full Metal Jacket was a movie, not reality. Marines who were really there wrote of their experience.

The movie is based on a book, The Shorter-Timers, written by a marine who was really there.

Anonymous said...

MTG,

Is it really so valuable for our war in Afghanistan to have an airbase that can handle a particular type of large transport plane 2 countries away from Afghanistan? Can't we just build bigger runways on one of our Afghan bases?

I can understand why an American strategist might want to have a base in Kyrgyzstan to have influence with its neighbors and annoy Russia and China, but I still don't buy the claims that it's critical for the Afghan war. It's further away than Afghanistan is in the supply chain, not nearer.

Whiskey said...

I wish I did Work for the military industrial complex. I'd make more money. Need I point out that the military industrial complex ... employs a lot of WHITE engineers, that create those affordable families Steve likes to write about?

Or that Obama has killed the F-22 Raptor program (loss of 130K jobs) and the NASA moon mission (loss of several million jobs)?

Moreover, if PEAK OIL is indeed accurate, the US needs a big military to go grab scarce resources first before China and other nations. Unless you want to go back to horse-drawn carriages, horse poop everywhere, and the standard of living of 1880. Me, I don't fancy life by a kerosene lamp.

We have to deal with the reality of today: scarce resources, no political will WHATSOEVER to even restrict people into the US much less close it off. Saying "lets just not let Muslims in" is a fantasy with Obama as President, the makeup of the Supreme Court, and Dems. You might as well predict next week the NBA will mandate its players be short White guys, with only one Black guy allowed.

Obama's nuke policy removed ambiguity in responses to attacks, projects weakness, and will not maintain much less increase our weapons. They're aging into uselessness. It is the equivalent of the Philly police announcing they won't shoot Flash mobs raging through tony White areas.

Under Obama, through 2013 (and likely beyond, given the SWPL folks) the best we can get is engagement and action on the ground. Engagement means we have allies of convenience who can tell us things we don't get any other way (including tribal people who cross Afghan-Iranian and Afghan-Pakistan borders without questions). Action means we have people on the ground who can use timely intelligence to whack enemies within minutes, not days as in Clintonian stand-offs.

My indictment is that people here are allowing their SWPL tendencies and fantasies that every place is like Irvine, and SWPL beliefs-emotions, instead more like Cuidad Juarez, to echo idiot Malibu Marxist statements. Equalizers in the form of nukes and ballistic missiles are likely to show that belief as bankrupt as global warming.

Why would anyone think it wise to be weak, and "evil" to have a military-industrial complex? Other than rampant SWPL idiocy along (John) Lennonist lines?

Anonymous said...

Off-topic, but related to Steve's earlier post on culturally specific forms of insanity. Here's one I'd never heard of before: Wendigo psychosis!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendigo#Wendigo_psychosis

Mr. Anon said...

"Michael T. Golden said...

"“Will you be suiting up and going over there to help our young soldiers, Mr. Keyboard Warrior?”

What difference would it make if I did, Ms. Ad Hominem Arguer?"

Well, it would help, if you went over yourself, wouldn't it? Another rifle in the fight? Or do you think that it's very important that we wage war in central asia, very important that young men should fight and die for the cause you espouse, but not so important that you yourself should do so. You are far too important, aren't you.

And what's wrong with an Ad Hominem attack? What's wrong with attacking the man, when the man is....oh, for example, a hypocritical, cowardly jerk?

"“You mean they [terrorists] can reach Arizona or Utah from there [Central Asian countries]?”

Terrorists supported by Al Qaeda, which was harbored by Afghanistan, did reach New York, and they killed 3000. If Al Q. hadn’t been able to recruit and train openly in A-stan, the hijackers would have had a much harder time."

You know what would have given them an even harder time? If we had not admitted them into the United States in the first place. We don't need to let young muslim men (or women) into this coutry at all. So why not just keep them all out? Something that you say is just simply impossible ..... inconceivable. So why should I give a damn about your opinion?

"“Would -we- appreciate a Chinese air base just outside Portland, Oregon?”

No, but we should base our policy on our own interests, not on what China would appreciate. China will in turn act in furtherance of its own interests, (which probably do not include trying to build a base in Oregon.)"

Let me get this straight. In order to do a lousy job defending the U.S. against the relatively minor threat posed by guys with AK-47s and car bombs, you would antagonize Russia and China, two nations that have large arsenals of nuclear weapons. Wouldn't it be more prudent to act in our own vital interests, but in a way that is cognizant of the fact that other nations have legitimate vital interests too, and that they might act on them?

But hey, don't let reality interfere with the most excellent foreign policy you neocons have devised - the foreign policy which has left us mired in two middle eastern wars for over twice as long as our involvement in WWII, helped bankrupt our treasury, and led to a communist like Obama being elected to the white house. Way to go, team!

Mr. Anon said...

"Michael T. Golden said...

Chickenhawk? I’m not even a hawk."

If you walk like one, and squalk like one, then you probably are one.

"“If we keep terrorists out of the USA, problem solved.”

Easier said than done, I’m afraid."

It's certainly much easier said than done if we never do it. Nor even try. Whom we let into our country is at our discretion. We - or rather, our elites - choose not to exercise that discretion in our interest.

"And, it wouldn’t even solve our problems, because we have assets, interests, and countrymen overseas that terrorists can strike."

Then perhaps we should not have so many overseas assets, if they are not defensible. And if idiot college studets want to hiking in the hills of Iraq or the jungles of Peru, then they are on their own. If they go to dangerous places, they should expect.......danger, not to be rescued by the Marines.

"We go by air, chief. The base is so useful because it’s equipped for these."

Yeah, we go by air. Afghanistan has air bases too. And, you know - and maybe it's just because they are called "air bases" - I figured that they can accomodate airplanes too. Why can't we just fly directly into those. Iraq has airbases too, and it's not much further from Afganistan than Kyrgystan is. But forgive me if I'm mistaken. I'm not as up on all that cool military stuff like you and Whiskey are. I don't bandy about terms I learned from Tom Clancy novels, words like "intel", and "force multiplier", and "game changer". I'm not an expert on military strategy like all you brilliant neocon guys who have learned the hard lessons of the world the old fashioned way ...... by spending hundreds of hours playing "Call of Duty" and "Modern Warfare".

headache said...

Whiskey sez:Afghanistan is different from Vietnam because Muslims are not Vietnamese.
No shit?

headache said...

Whiskey sez:As far as Israel goes, it is already on its own. Obama has made it clear he will shoot down any attack on Iran and wants Iranian nukes.

If that's so, which I don't beleive coz Obama is a stooge of the zionist brotherhood running Wall Street, Obama would have earned his first brownie point from me.

Truth said...

Whiskey said...

I wish I did Work for the military industrial complex. I'd make more money. "

Great, I think a lot of us wish that as well, I think a position as long-term-tester-of-the-effects-of-
nuclear-fallout would put your skills and talents to their best possible use, Sport.

I'd even write a recommendation.

Dennis Dale said...

"I wish I did Work for the military industrial complex. I'd make more money."

Damned psychological evaluations. I kid, I kid!

Anonymous said...

Truth said...

Whiskey said...

I wish I did Work for the military industrial complex. I'd make more money. "

Great, I think a lot of us wish that as well, I think a position as long-term-tester-of-the-effects-of-
nuclear-fallout would put your skills and talents to their best possible use, Sport.

I'd even write a recommendation.

TRUTH WINS THE INTERNETS!

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

Or that Obama has killed the F-22 Raptor program (loss of 130K jobs) and the NASA moon mission (loss of several million jobs)?"

Wow, your knowledge of the space program is as comprehensively wrong as most of the rest of your knowledge. "Millions" of people will not be put out of work if the Constellation program is cancelled. Maybe a few tens of thousands will be, and maybe not. And to be fair, Obama did not kill Constellation. Mike Griffin and his clique of yes-men did, through their mismanagement of it.

Anonymous said...

Here's an idea. Why don't we remain militarily strong, maintain our alliance with Japan, NATO, etc. to protect our national interests, AND stop invading/occupying a lot of 2-bit irrelevant countries 13,000 miles away? Or worrying about Krgyzstan or obsessing over the internal affairs of every country in every part of the globe.

I know its c-r-a-z-y but maybe there's a sensible middle course between 'Invade the world, invite the world' and becoming a 'hermit country'.

Victoria said...

... they are literally laughing at us in China.

Absolutely. I often picture the Chinese watching, scrutinizing and drinking in the craziness that is bringing this country down. At first, they probably were aghast at what they were seeing, but now they know that all they have to do is wait it out. And what in the world do they make of our Evangelical lunatics? I wish I could be a fly on a Chinese wall, to listen in.

One of these days the rest of the rednecks are going to figure it out too.

I wish this would prove true, but I doubt it. This class is hopelessly caught, not only in innate habits they cannot alter ("Yes, Master Commander, just show us who to kill, and we'll do it"), but in brainwashing they refuse to analyze.

Cicero said...

Whiskey Said

"I wish I did Work for the military industrial complex. I'd make more money. Need I point out that the military industrial complex ... employs a lot of WHITE engineers, that create those affordable families Steve likes to write about?"

Wow, you really think a Soviet-style guns-and-butter economy is somehow desirable for the U.S.? Right, it showed such vitality after the Cold War ended. At least I know why you are such a war-mongering little bastard now.

"Or that Obama has killed the F-22 Raptor program (loss of 130K jobs) and the NASA moon mission (loss of several million jobs)?"

Obama had to kill those programs because we are broke son. He decided to put NASA to the torch in part to keep the war in Afghanistan going. When your first goal as a nation is to blow up goat farmers with million dollar missles, space exploration tends to go to the wayside. He's doing exactly what you want though, what are you complaining about?

"Moreover, if PEAK OIL is indeed accurate, the US needs a big military to go grab scarce resources first before China and other nations. Unless you want to go back to horse-drawn carriages, horse poop everywhere, and the standard of living of 1880. Me, I don't fancy life by a kerosene lamp."

This sounds eerily (and by eerily I mean exactly) like the rationale Imperial Japan used in the 1920's and 30's to attack China, and later to try and conquer the British, French and American possessions in South Asia during WWII. Geez, that went swell for them right? You're so worried about us being nuked Whiskey? I'd say your types are doing more to set us up for that then any other group in the world, and that includes the terrorists themselves.

I would tear apart the rest of your post as well, but it would make me feel sicker than I already do. Besides, I know you will post some more propaganda that needs to be debunked soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Michael T. Golden can fall back ont he Jonah Goldberg chickenhawk excuse of "Oh, you wouldn't want me as a soldier! I'd be terrible at it! Heh-heh..."

No, really Michael, we would! Enlist today, brave chickenhawk.

Nuking US Troops said...

Btw, I am a big supporter of the military-industrial complex. I have no problem with expanding the military budget or building bases overseas or creating a true American empire.

I am against the Iraq war but not for the same reasons that the Democrats are against the Iraq war. Democrats are traitors and subversives. They would not support Iraq even if it was a good idea. Nevertheless, the Iraq War as it is currently fought is not designed to secure anything for America. It is designed to push whatever humanitarian liberal agenda the Democrats fancy. And I fully expect that our troops are going to get nuked because of Obama's maneuvering them into a slaughter. That is what is going on right now. I do not want to see that happen.

Whiskey is wrong to support the War on Terror if he thinks that there is anything going on in the war that benefits America, including whatever "intelligence" is being gathered. Yes, I would support the war as a "make-work" project for US soldiers. The problem is, troops are dying for nothing. What is worse, they are being persecuted by the JAG officer core for war crimes and "illegal killings" in a combat zone. There simply is no make-work involved at all. There is simply death by a thousand cuts culminating in a mass nuclear slaughter.

Otherwise, I would agree with Whiskey completely. He is right. In an alternate reality, I would prefer mass removal of hostile foreigners at home while practicing gunboat diplomacy abroad. But since there is no one willing to do that, I would prefer preventing losing any more American lives.

airtommy said...

Nuking US Troops said...

Democrats are traitors and subversives. They would not support Iraq even if it was a good idea.


That's absurd. Democrats DID support the Iraq War, and they still are.

Anonymous said...

The movie is based on a book, The Shorter-Timers, written by a marine who was really there.

The Short-Timers, to be pedantic, by Gustav Hasford.

Its quite a short book, ideal for turning into a film. I read it after the film came out but before I myself saw it. Definitely a worth a read.

Dennis Dale said...

re the Short Timers: the best of Matthew Modine's voice-over narration in the film is right out of the book, which doesn't have a note out of place.
Still Kubrick's is not a close adaptation, mostly because the book isn't well disposed to one, with a hallucinatory feel and pace and no real story.
A great book made into a better film.

Anonymous said...

"Why the hell would anyone listen to an idiot Zionist neocon like Whiskey explain why we're in Central Asia (to stop teh muzlin terrists!) when guys like Brzezinski who actually run things and wield influence explicitly tell us why?"

Because Whiskey is a lot more entertaining (albeit unintentionally) than Brzezinski.

"Obama's announcement that the US will not retaliate against a nation is a signal to Iran that US troops can now be attacked with impunity and that the Iranians should now deploy their nukes against these troops."

Nice theory, but it's completely nuts. Obama's announcement explicitly excluded Iran (on the specious grounds that Iran is allegedly violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Based on Obama's announcement, the USA could attack Iran with nuclear weapons, no ifs ands or buts.

Try reading Obama's actual announcement. It's so riddled with out-clauses as to be completely meaningless. Just because the right-wing radio nutjobs are screaming bloody murder doesn't mean that anything meaningful has acually happened.

Nuking US Troops said...

uking US Troops said...

Democrats are traitors and subversives. They would not support Iraq even if it was a good idea.

That's absurd. Democrats DID support the Iraq War, and they still are.

The supported the Iraq war for the sake of appearances. They've undermined it ever since in support of America's enemies.

l said...

I'd almost forgotten about all the color-coded revolutions of the past decade. There was a time when George Soros put his money behind fake grass-roots "people power" movements in places like Kyrgzstan, Georgia, the Ukraine, etc. Having displaced several Russian-leaning autocrats with "pro-democracy" autocrats in old Soviet Republics, Soros turned his attention to the US.

Nuking US Troops said...

"Try reading Obama's actual announcement. It's so riddled with out-clauses as to be completely meaningless. Just because the right-wing radio nutjobs are screaming bloody murder doesn't mean that anything meaningful has acually happened."

If its so riddled with out-clauses that signify nothing, then why make the speech in the first place?

The answer is that this is just code that Democrats use to communicate with each other using the public airwaves. If Obama is saying that the US will not retaliate with nuclear weapons against a signatory of some nuclear arms agreement, then what he is really saying is that Iran could either use that signatory as its proxy and thus create plausible deniability if it decides to attack the US, or the US promises to stymie any retaliation with bureaucratic fact-finding missions to determine who "really" did it.

Either way, Obama is providing a green-light to have Iran attack the US.

l said...

I heard from a Polish friend today. He's thinking Putin offed Poland's president. And funded the opposition in Kyrgyzstan. Those paranoid Poles!

l said...

"Afghanistan is not Vietnam"

True dat. The problem for the Republic of Vietnam was that there was no equivalent of the Jewish lobby, pimping for endless war. Establishment intellectuals could rationalize a "cut and run" from 'Nam.

kudzu bob said...

Spending trillions of blood-soaked dollars to fight oil wars makes more sense than peacefully using that same money to develop our own nuclear and shale gas resources.

The back-to-the-moon program employed millions of people, a total several times greater than the number of jobs ever provided by the American auto industry at its height.

I wonder what dark and hard-to-reach place it is where Testy gets his ideas fr--

Say, what's that awful stench?

Anonymous said...

Moving on we have non other than Bobby Charlton - now Sir Bobby Charlton of course. Another member of the Busby Babes who also survived the crash in Munich Bobby netted 249 times for Utd- the club record. For a long time he also held the record for the most appearances for the club at 758, a figure that has since been surpassed by Ryan Giggs. [url=http://www.pulsebet.com]man utd vs[/url] With this as background, United is probably the more popular of the two Manchester football teams, wouldn’t you think? Such may not be the case as there has been a long-standing belief that Manchester City actually has more local fans than their more famous namesakes. A few years ago, a Manchester University research study discovered that Manchester United has 9,000 season ticket holders in the M postal area compared to Manchester City’s 7,000 season ticket holders. City fans quickly pointed out, though, that the research study was conducted before the City team moved to the larger City of Manchester stadium. As a result, no one is really sure which team is more popular among the locals. What is certain is that as far as nationwide and international support is concerned, United has a far larger fan base than City. [url=http://www.pulsebet.com]vidic[/url] Hopefully this article has given an informative insight into the history of the Manchester United Shirt, and should you be asked on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" for the colour scheme of the Newton Railways Club shirt, you won't need to phone a friend!