Iraq 3.0: Podcast of August 9, 2014 Show

The above picture was taken in June when it was reported that 800 ISIS soldiers defeated 30,000 Iraqi troops who basically threw down their arms and deserted leaving land and arms for ISIS to pick up. Where did these matching vehicles come from? Did the Iraqi soldiers give them up? Is it really plausible that 30,000 Iraqi soldiers turned tail in the face of 800 jihadis if the Iraq Army is this well-equipped? ISIS looks to me like a well-funded, well-organized group that did not just spontaneously break off from the disorganized, beaten down jihadis in Syria. Even if they did, the Syrian jihadis (and ISIS) are widely reported as being funded by our allies in the region. In any case, looking at this picture calls to mind the (new?) adage, “all terrorism is state-sponsored.”

Here is the podcast of this week’s show. (For the show I did when ISIS first emerged in June, click here.)

Two corrections/points to the August 9 show: (1) I misspoke and said the Shia state would be in the middle but it’s actually in the south (see this image from my June show for the proposed configuration of the states formerly known as Iraq): (2) Caller Bret said Assad gassed his people in Syria last year – I think that’s untrue. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Syrian rebels conducted that chemical attack to draw the US into the Syrian war. For some damning footage supporting this view, click here.

Hour 1

Hour 2

Hour 3

 

This entry was posted in foreign affairs, isis, Middle East, on the show, original audio, war on terror and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Iraq 3.0: Podcast of August 9, 2014 Show

  1. Patricia says:

    I’m reading that the classical liberal and traditional conservative were opposing political thoughts per The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk and Rothbard’s essay, Left And Right: The Prospects For Liberty. Truly, I see value in both–and neither are associated with the 20th century Progressive movement as far as I can tell.

    • austrogirl says:

      There is a position that “conservative” means opposed to change or supporting the state. This is what Irving Kristol bases his support of the “conservative welfare state” on (http://themonicaperezshow.com/confessions-of-a-neo-conservative/). I was using the “traditional conservative” handle to mean a Barry Goldwater conservative (http://themonicaperezshow.com/monicaisms/), which I think of as meaning in support of economic and political liberty. (Barry Goldwater famously said, “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight,” because he believed in personal liberty.) I think what you are referring to is that when the Classical Liberal train of thought first emerged, it was a change and a threat to the existing hierarchy – the “conservatives” of that time supported monarchy over liberalism (by that I mean liberty, not today’s definition of liberalism). Because America was founded on this principle, the Classical Liberal approach is the conservative approach, in that traditional American conservatives want to “conserve” (ie, “protect from loss or harm” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conserve) the American tradition of economic and political liberty. I ought to do a show on this!

  2. I think it’s important that we have some kind of conflict that requires military force, so that people do not begin to question the size and scope of political power. With the proper Orwellian bogeyman, the people will not mind being slaves to the political class. They will come and place their freedoms at the feet of their political leaders, and say, “take our freedom, and give us chains. Only save us from the (enter external bogeyman here) !”

  3. daedalus32 says:

    What was “won” as a result of WW2? The internationalists in the creation of the U.N., the acquisition of a state by the zionists, and the consumption of half of Europe by the bloody communists that had already taken over Russia. The set up for what was dubbed the Cold War, which excused the total conversion of the U.S. into an Empire that polices the world, anther win for the international cabal. Who’s benefiting from the “War on Terror”? The same.

  4. charles from duluth says:

    During the second half of your third hour podcast August 9th,2014,you asked if Greystone was the new name for Blackwater Security. It was a part of Blackwater which became Xe Services,Academi. In 2014,the company became a division of Constellis Holdings along with Triple Canopy and other security companies that were part of the Constellis Group as the result of an acquisition. I find it interesting that the day after your August 9th broadcast when I went to the internet to reread, the name Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffet could not be found in regards to the above.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s