US policy of dishonesty and hypocrisy

JC29856

I can't post just the clip but for anyone who gives a shit, much can be drawn from this exchange starting after 35 min mark until just before 45 min mark. This is truly worth the 10 minutes, it sums up American foreign policy to the T.

https://youtu.be/PegVBHEhbDs

JC29856

Where have we heard this before? Saudis bombing Yemen
The Saudis "have a right to defend themselves" and "rockets raining down"

polaris_x

looks like you and I are the only ones that want to get into this ... i get it though ... if you subscribe to this stuff - then it blows up pretty much everything many people believe in ... it's really pandora's box ...

JC29856

polaris_x said:

looks like you and I are the only ones that want to get into this ... i get it though ... if you subscribe to this stuff - then it blows up pretty much everything many people believe in ... it's really pandora's box ...

Yes I this isn't what most care about or hear about.
I will search for the transcripts and post.
Love to hear your take on it.

polaris_x

it's pretty straight forward ... US foreign policy has always been about economic imperialism ... syria is no different ...

JC29856

My favorite part is when the women questions him on the hypocrisy and double standard with Russian bombing hospitals (which is disputed) and US and US allies bombing hospitals too but it being different.
Kirby realizing he just got his pants pulled down figuratively then attacks her by saying something like "I would love to see you ask your government, why don't you poke or prod your own government..."

Since he knows he full of shit he evades the questions and says go ask your government the same, like a typical arrogant asshole.

JC29856

While the collective US election circle jerk goes on in the foreground this is happening in the background.

Russian FM Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova hit back at her US counterpart John Kirby, who warned that terrorist attacks may take place in Russia if the civil war continues in Syria. His remark sounds like a call to “get ’em,” she noted.
“Extremist groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which could include attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities. Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and will continue to lose resources, perhaps even aircraft,” US State Department spokesperson John Kirby told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing, adding that if the war in Syria continues “more Russian lives will be lost, more Russian aircraft will be shot down.”

JC29856

The July 19 strike was not an anomaly, according the monitoring group Airwars, which tracks foreign governments’ airstrikes in Syria. The U.S.-led coalition has carried out more than 5,300 airstrikes in Syria since September 2014, likely killing at least 850 civilians, according to Airwars, and potentially over 1,200. But the United States has admitted to killing just 33 civilians, Airwars reports.

JC29856

“The average delay between a civilian being killed by the U.S.-led alliance and any public admission is presently six months,” Woods tells In These Times. “And to the best of our knowledge, no compensation has been paid out to any affected non-combatant.”

The U.S. apologizes for bombing unintended targets when it’s politically expedient—otherwise, it prefers to remain silent.

polaris_x

JC29856 said:

My favorite part is when the women questions him on the hypocrisy and double standard with Russian bombing hospitals (which is disputed) and US and US allies bombing hospitals too but it being different.
Kirby realizing he just got his pants pulled down figuratively then attacks her by saying something like "I would love to see you ask your government, why don't you poke or prod your own government..."

Since he knows he full of shit he evades the questions and says go ask your government the same, like a typical arrogant asshole.

it's part of the PR training

JC29856

QUESTION: John, I’d just like to take another crack at Arshad’s question. If you’re going to get any kind of agreement, you have to have some leverage, and that can be positive and negative reinforcements. So you’ve said what’s in it – the agreement for the Russians is the possibility of military collaboration, this Joint Implementation Center. That’s something they want. But what I don’t think we have heard here is, so what are the consequences for Russia if this agreement falls through beyond some interagency discussions about options that have not yet been chosen? What are the consequences for Russia other than Secretary Kerry won’t talk to them on this particular issue going forward?

MR KIRBY: The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft. The stability that they claim they seek in Syria will be ever more elusive, and it’s hard to imagine how a continued war – not just a civil war now, but increasingly more violent extremist activity in Syria – can be in the interest of a nation that says, that claims, and has claimed publicly time and time again that what they want to see is a whole, unified, pluralistic Syria and a stable Syria, a secure Syria, a Syria where they want to continue to have a defense relationship and a presence. So that’s what’s in it for them.

QUESTION: Well, when you say – just a quick follow-up – when you say that extremists will exploit the vacuum and that could include attacks on Russia’s cities and Russia could send its troops back in body bags, that also could suggest that perhaps the rebels could start sending home their troops in body bags.

MR KIRBY: It’s going to mean, again, more violence, more war, and you can expect casualties on both sides of this. But the question was what’s in it for Russia to meet its obligations under I don’t know how many different agreements, but specifically the one from September 9th in terms of seven days of reduced violence, humanitarian access. So the question posed to me was what’s in it for Russia, and that’s what’s in it for Russia --

JC29856

QUESTION: One of the things that the Secretary said – or that you said in your statement about his – in your readout of his conversation was – he talked about how the United States and its allies would hold Russia responsible for the situation, including the use of incendiary and bunker-busting bombs in an urban area. So is it your view that the use of incendiary and bunker-busting bombs in an urban area, where civilians are still largely present, could be construed to be a war crime or a violation of the international laws of war?

MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary has spoken to this and has acknowledged that the use of those kinds of weapons against civilian populations is in fact a violation of international law, as is the use of chlorine gas against innocent people, as is the bombing of hospitals or aid workers. I don’t think there is any doubt about that. Now, I think I know where you’re going here, in terms of holding responsible. I’m not going to speculate about how, when, or in what way Russia will be held to account for what it has not only permitted, but assisted the Assad regime in doing. But when we say they’re responsible, we mean it. But I’m not going to get ahead --

QUESTION: So you’re suggesting --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made yet.

Boxes&Books

Hey JC, do you support a pardon for Snowden? Just curious.

good post.

JC29856

tonifig8 said:

Hey JC, do you support a pardon for Snowden? Just curious.

good post.

I'm not sure what is at the heart of his crime(s)? Is it that he stole states secrets or is it that he gave it to certain media outlets? To clarify, he did NOT disseminate the info, he gave it to media. I guess what I'm saying is that whatever he did wrong, I believe he did for the interest of the country. He knew he would be targeted and potentially killed, he is too intelligent and worked to long in around government to know it wouldn't end with a book deal a movie and a medal of honor. The US uses (purposely) draconian law to prosecute whistleblowers, this president prosecuted more than any other president combined. Off the cuff I say yes pardon, but I'm not entirely sure about the intricacies of what he was charged.
The sad part is he is a fucking genius well ahead of his time and should be an asset to the country but instead the US macho dick show got in the way. Might is right.

JC29856

QUESTION: Just – I just have one more. When you said that we hold them responsible – just to go back to the legal issue, to the responsibility – when you say you hold them responsible, does it – are you saying that in a legal sense or in a moral, diplomatic sense?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t know that there was a different way of looking at somebody’s responsibility.

QUESTION: There is a – of course there is. You sit there all the time up from the podium and you say, well, that would get us into a legal determination which I don’t – you know what I mean? You’re always invoking that.

MR KIRBY: When we say that we’re holding them responsible, we mean within the universe of what that means. So is it moral? Absolutely it’s moral. And could there be some sort of legal ramification to that responsibility? Yeah, there could be.

QUESTION: But that – when you say that, that’s different than suggesting that you hold them legally responsible and you’ve contacted your lawyers and you’ve done – yes, it --

MR KIRBY: We’re not – I – I know you would like a lot more clarity on this than I’m going to give you today, but when we say we’re – we hold Russia responsible, we mean what we say. Now, I’m not going to speculate about the ramifications or consequences down the road of that.

QUESTION: But you’re not saying what you mean, though.

MR KIRBY: No, I’m not. I’m not going to go into any more detail on it than I have today, as much as I know you would like that. When we say we hold them responsible, we hold them responsible, in the entire universe of what that means, whether it’s morally or potentially legally.

QUESTION: So that would suggest that you’ve done a legal determination and you’ve found that they are legally responsible.

MR KIRBY: No, it doesn’t. It means that we hold them responsible.

JC29856

tonifig8 said:

Hey JC, do you support a pardon for Snowden? Just curious.

good post.

The 9th district court convicted WBush for warrantless wiretapping, a felony. What was his punishment penalty?
Basically it's more lawful to break the law and less lawful to expose those who break the law. Makes perfect US sense.

polaris_x

definitely pardon snowden

the people that should be in jail are the ones in office ...

JC29856

polaris_x said:

definitely pardon snowden

the people that should be in jail are the ones in office ...

Never happen...Snowmen Manning are examples, precedent setters to others that even remotely think about exposing our government for what it is.

polaris_x

JC29856 said:

polaris_x said:

definitely pardon snowden

the people that should be in jail are the ones in office ...

Never happen...Snowmen Manning are examples, precedent setters to others that even remotely think about exposing our government for what it is.

for sure ...

pjalive21

polaris_x said:

definitely pardon snowden

the people that should be in jail are the ones in office ...

JC29856

Speaking of precedent
911 victims bill
As it happens, the White House’s principled opposition to the bill was based on its worry that it would open the door to lawsuits from foreigners accusing the U.S. government of crimes, possibly including the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, deaths of innocent people with drones, and global mass surveillance.