What’s to apologize for? I’m not Murray Rothbard, although I’m sure he would have passed comment on Rockefeller/Brzezinski/Trilateral Commission ambitions.

If you equate suggesting someone refer to the stated opinions and objectives of Obama’s foreign policy advisor (or Bushes PNAC crew) with the act of “name dropping” then you might want to stop prattling on about this blowback nonsense and stop recklessly slandering anyone not impressed by superficial buzzword theory pushing.

You stated these wars should be/could be ‘won’ and then terminated. Then you invoke some Osama Bin Laden nonsense in tandem with some confused rational as to why your proudly not a ‘pacifist’.

If you would only inform yourself it would be immediately clear how ridiculous all these utterances are.

If only you’d tell me what his thesis on this actually is.

Sorry about Rothbard. If we don’t have to discuss how Rothbard told us all to be pacifists blah blah blah, then good. I’m quite happy when the sillier parts of Rothbard are rejected.

Disputing blowback in any way (you seem to be inferring this) seems highly selective since you’ve inferred that a massive military-industrial complex exists. Why are military operations subject to unintended consequences in one instance and not another?

What fairytale do I have, why is it a fairytale and how is Murray Rothbard connected with the fairytale? Please elaborate. I’d actually love to be enlightened by the blowback theorist now since the evil Rothbard has now become involved.

A dick measuring contest? what’s up with that?

Your obviously committed to a very juvenile frame of mind on this so your flurry of hysterical nonsense here can’t be taken seriously.

Mine is that you have two options – total committment or no engagement. A total pull-out is something I sympathise with, but given the circumstance I think it is risky, irresponsible and a broken promise.

I think the backlash may be significant. You might want to dismiss this as “something an ex CIA asset said” but it is something that millions of ordinary young men might think.

I don’t think the risk of the blowback is worth it and it outweighs the current anti US sentiment which was largely a preconceived idea by those who hold that view.

Afghanistan and Pakistan were justified. Policing actions was frustrated and unfortunately military force was required. Iraq was a gamble that required a lot more luck to work the way the Hawks wished it to.

All I know is you are following someone who criticised Iraq. So did I. You’re not telling me why blowback is a non issue. I could also discount Brezezinski’s view as an “ex Carter advisor”.

Who gives a toss what an ex CIA asset like Bin Laden says. Again, if your not familiar with what people who do have backing and influence like Brzezinski’s say, your in total darkness.

If you want to, a military power can go about colonialism through the most bloody ways and treat the locals like serfs.

Let’s call it quasi colonialism.

Damian,

I bet you are a ‘root causes’ kind of guy. Do you understand that one of the three main gripes bin laden had (the other two being unreasonable about US bases in Saudi and Israel) with America directly relates to finishing off a war?

That’s a totally unrealistic fantasy. For starters, what incentives are there for the military goods manufacturers, corporate contractors and military expansionists to wind down operations with some sort of peaceful conclusion?

Also, Brzezinski’s writings over the past decades (Obama’s advisor and probably, although not disclosed, someone who has shaped Obama’s geopolitics since Columbia University attendance) plus the PNAC documents gives one a more realistic perspective of what’s unfolding.