A Question of Intent: "US Helicopter Carrying Weapons To ISIS Shot Down By Iraq's 'Popular Forces'"

Concerning US Helicopter Carrying Weapons To ISIS Shot Down By Iraq's 'Popular Forces':

The Iraqi Army have again claimed that they have downed aircraft from the US led coalition that was providing military assistance to ISIS.

According to a report by the Iranian Fars News Agency (see below) a US helicopter carrying arms to ISIS was shot down on Thursday.

A few days earlier on Monday it was also reported that the Iraqi army had downed two British planes delivering weapons to ISIS.

03041501I would say there are historical grounds for being suspicious, but there's no smoking-gun evidence in that article.

What I would like to see is the percentage of total airdrops that have been dropped in IS controlled territory. If it is extremely low, then that would lend credence to the US claim that those very few drops were errors.

If the US were to want the war against IS to drag out very long, the percentage of drops falling into IS hands would have to be probably 30%, depending upon IS's other sources of weapons. In addition, besides just airdrops, one would have to factor in non-airdropped aid to Iraq and the Kurds, such as by cargo planes and ships that land and dock.

It is not farfetched to think that the US, knowing that it did the vast majority of the fighting in Iraq (rightly or wrongly) before, doesn't want to repeat that error. The US trained and heavily equipped the Shiites in Iraq only to see them drop and abandon their advanced weapons and equipment at the first sign of a very tiny (in relative terms) ISIS group roll right at them in non-armored vehicles. Why didn't those Shiites stand and fight the ISIS when it was no more than 5-7 thousand? The Shiites hugely outnumbered those Sunnis and had all the weapons and ammunition and equipment to defeat ISIS right then and there, and more weapons and ammo, etc., would have been forthcoming from the US had those Shiites have done that.

So, to have the Shiites of Iran making the claims they have in the linked article is telling half-truths at best. Propaganda spin works on both sides, comes from both sides.

The Iranians want the US to simply unleash whatever it would take for the US to completely wipe out IS in a month, but that wouldn't create the situation where Shiites defend themselves but rather rely upon the US taxpayers to defend them.

I'm not saying I support US actions in the Middle East. I don't. I know that the US foreign policy toward the region has been stupid even in secular terms and going back nearly to the very first time the US engaged the area.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Wrong: "We're desperate to believe in something. But bringing God into economics is risky | Eliza Filby"

This is a great article except that its conclusion is completely wrong.

Photo by ITV/REX (339740m) MARGARET THATCHER. 'WEEKEND WORLD' 1978

Photo by ITV/REX (339740m)
MARGARET THATCHER. 'WEEKEND WORLD' 1978

Thatcherism: an individualistic interpretation of the Bible, a nod to the spiritual dangers of avarice, the Protestant work ethic, praise of the godly virtues of thrift and self-reliance and, finally, a divine justification for individual liberty and the free market. In short, Thatcherism always owed more to Methodism than to monetarism.
...
In the end, though, even she was prepared to admit she had failed in her crusade. When asked by Frank Field what her greatest regret in office was, she replied: “I cut taxes and I thought we would get a giving society, and we haven’t.” She was right. A survey conducted by the Charities Aid Foundation in 1989 revealed that those who gave the most to causes were not from the prosperous south but were disproportionately located in those areas that benefited least from the Thatcher boom.
...
... In private Thatcher used to rage against bankers and their bonuses. Why did they not follow the example of those in the army she would cry, which in her view was the model demonstration of responsibility to one’s fellow man.
...
Thatcherism laid the foundations for a culture in which individualism and self-reliance could thrive, but ultimately it created a culture in which only selfishness and excess were rewarded. Thatcher liked to quote John Wesley’s mantra, “Earn all you can, save all you can and give all you can,” and yet it was only ever the first instruction that was sufficiently encouraged. ...
...
... What the neoliberal experiment of the last 30 years teaches us is not that religion and politics do not mix, but that the politics of certainty is where danger lies.

Source: We’re desperate to believe in something. But bringing God into economics is risky | Eliza Filby | Comment is free | The Guardian.

It makes one feel for Margaret. She was a bleeding-heart libertarian, a contradiction in terms. I'm glad Eliza wrote it, but she's completely wrong that God is risky.

You see, it's very simple. Margaret simply didn't understand Christianity. Her "Christian" upbringing was wrong, as well-intentioned as it probably was.

Her religious education was self first and nothing, or very little, through the state. Real Christianity is others first and always and right from the start, with the "state" being Heaven (that government) come to the Earth. That's not capitalism! It's not Marxism either, far from it.

No, it's not risky to have God in economics. It's required.

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment

World: A look at China’s patriotic martyrs ~ CHINAaid

03021501

For years the Chinese Communist Party justified persecuting unregistered house churches by labeling them as cults that disdained the government. Without direct control over the churches, the government believed they could spread dangerous teaching and eventually revolt against the Communist Party.

But during research for his dissertation, pastor and missionary Timothy Conkling found a completely different story. Of the hundreds of house church members he interviewed, “never once was there talk about overthrowing the government,” even if they had issues with certain aspects of the government’s policy. Led by a theology of martyrdom, house churches view persecution as a privilege, and thus do not respond violently against their oppressors.

Source: World: A look at China’s patriotic martyrs ~ CHINAaid.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment