Do the neo-cons here think Blowback is just made up?

[Deicide]

I am curious...

Blowback is a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.[1]

In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts. In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.

The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the harmful effects to friendly forces when some weapons are used under certain conditions (for example nuclear fallout, chemical weapons, etc. used upwind from friendly troops or assets, or a torpedo circling and hitting the firing vessel, etc.). The word is believed to have appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état titled "Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953."[2][3]

In the 1980s, blowback became a central focus of the debate over the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated militarily supporting resistance movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. In one case, covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua would lead to the Iran-Contra Affair, while covert support led to a World Court ruling against the United States in Nicaragua v. United States.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine argued that blowback was unavoidable, and that, through the doctrine, the United States was inflaming wars in the Third World. Doctrine advocates, principally at the conservative Heritage Foundation, responded that support for anti-communist resistance movements would lead to a "correlation of forces," which would topple communist regimes without significant retaliatory consequence to the United States, while simultaneously altering the global balance of power in the Cold War.

[youandme]

It's real but it can be handled with a term called blowup

[Decker]

Great post.

I still have yet to find one person that can defend the treason of Reaga/Bush and the Iran/Contra Affair.

It seems there's a segment out there that thinks every foreign situation should be dealth with by unilateral military action of some sort.

[Eldon]

Great post.

I still have yet to find one person that can defend the treason of Reaga/Bush and the Iran/Contra Affair.

It seems there's a segment out there that thinks every foreign situation should be dealth with by unilateral military action of some sort.

Hey Hypocrite,

You mean like how You could be such a pathetic hypocrite in trashing the troops for going to Iraq, while at the same time supporting your man-crush John Edwards, who helped send them their  !

You a a pathetic Hypocrite         

[Decker]

Hey Hypocrite,

You mean like You could be such a pathetic hypocrite in trashing the troops for going to Iraq, while at the same time supporting your man-crush John Edwards, who helped send them their  !

You a a pathetic Hypocrite         

What does this have to do with this thread.

Please stop stalking me.

[Eldon]

What does this have to do with this thread.

Please stop stalking me.

Considering you trashed the troops for going to Iraq, while at the same time supporting your man-crush John Edwards, who helped send them their  !

Shows you have zero credibility

You a a pathetic Hypocrite          

[240 is Back]

It's real but it can be handled with a term called blowup

LMAO...

I'd prefer let Israel hit iran and keep the USA out of it.

[Decker]

Considering you trashed the troops for going to Iraq, while at the same time supporting your man-crush John Edwards, who helped send them their  !

Shows you have zero credibility

You a a pathetic Hypocrite          

No, it demonstrates your inability analyze something intelligently.

Now stop disrupting this thread with your offpoint banter.

[youandme]

LMAO...

I'd prefer let Israel hit iran and keep the USA out of it.

Yeah. But are we really going to stay out of it if that happens. (Sometime in October, according to rumors)

[Deicide]

Blow up= more blowback= vicious circle

[Eldon]

No, it demonstrates your inability analyze something intelligently.

Now stop disrupting this thread with your offpoint banter.

It demonstrates what a hypocrite you are, and  that you have zero credibilitly in any discussion having to do with this subject.



Why don't tell us more about how you justify talking trash on our troops for not disobeying orders and going to Iraq  and yet at the same time, you supported a man that voted for the War, that helped send them to Iraq,  yet He did not even read the Intelligence reports, and He was on the Intelligence committee !

[Deicide]

It demonstrates what a hypocrite you are, and  that you have zero credibly in any discussion having to do with this subject.



Why don't tell us more about how you justify talking trash on our troops for not disobeying orders and going to Iraq  and yet at the same time, you supported a man that voted for the War, that helped send them to Iraq,  yet He did not even read the Intelligence reports, and He was on the Intelligence committee !

Edwards is a Dickhead.

Chalmers Johnson for President!

[Hugo Chavez]

I am curious...

Ok they've had their little idealist minds rattled a bit I think

[Deicide]

I don't think so.

They just think: yeah, it's real; get the guns and bombs out.

[Camel Jockey]

Lead to the creation of the militants in Afghanistan.

And joint US/English interference in Iran during the 60's lead to the Shah and shitty rule and eventual Islamic government 

All these flag wavers and patriots have such strong urgings for war because they understand very little about US interference abroad.

[headhuntersix]

Yeah...we fucked it all up..oh wait there were those Soviet guys....wow what were they up to dring the 60s 70s and 80s...my gosh maybe we backed Iran so we had a hedge against Soviet expansion in the Middle East...no couldn't be. Or maybe we backed Right wing murderous thgs becase if we didn't they'd be replaced by Left wing murderous thugs...nope. Ur right we're the bad guys.


Whats life like in fuzzy bunny land

[Camel Jockey]

Yeah...we fucked it all up..oh wait there were those Soviet guys....wow what were they up to dring the 60s 70s and 80s...my gosh maybe we backed Iran so we had a hedge against Soviet expansion in the Middle East...no couldn't be. Or maybe we backed Right wing murderous thgs becase if we didn't they'd be replaced by Left wing murderous thugs...nope. Ur right we're the bad guys.


Whats life like in fuzzy bunny land

Even with the soviets I don't think we'd be in our current situation

Us backing those animals = no help today, and maybe not getting involved would have proved different?

[Deicide]

Yeah...we fucked it all up..oh wait there were those Soviet guys....wow what were they up to dring the 60s 70s and 80s...my gosh maybe we backed Iran so we had a hedge against Soviet expansion in the Middle East...no couldn't be. Or maybe we backed Right wing murderous thgs becase if we didn't they'd be replaced by Left wing murderous thugs...nope. Ur right we're the bad guys.


Whats life like in fuzzy bunny land

HH6, the Cold War is over and the USSR is no longer an applicable boogeyman; something new please.

Beyond that, what your arguing is absurd; it amounts to the following. We had to support genocide, corrupt regimes, assassinate people, start wars because if we didn't they would have done the same thing? Huh? Come again? It would have been to our advantage not to have done those things precisely because the USSR lost, not because of the USA but because it went broke, which is where we are heading today. In short, non-interventionism would have hastened the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union.

[Fury]

HH6, the Cold War is over and the USSR is no longer an applicable boogeyman; something new please.

Beyond that, what your arguing is absurd; it amounts to the following. We had to support genocide, corrupt regimes, assassinate people, start wars because if we didn't they would have done the same thing? Huh? Come again? It would have been to our advantage not to have done those things precisely because the USSR lost, not because of the USA but because it went broke, which is where we are heading today. In short, non-interventionism would have hastened the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union.

Hahaha, non-interventionism would've hastened the bankruptcy of the USSR? That's a crock. They destroyed themselves by failing to do anything but build weapons. They had no infrastructure, did nothing to make their country better and destroyed their economy doing so. The arms race was what drove them into the ground.

You and the three obscure researchers you'll probably reference are most likely the only people who believe that crap.

[Deicide]

Hahaha, non-interventionism would've hastened the bankruptcy of the USSR? That's a crock. They destroyed themselves by failing to do anything but build weapons. They had no infrastructure, did nothing to make their country better and destroyed their economy doing so. The arms race was what drove them into the ground.

You and the three obscure researchers you'll probably reference are most likely the only people who believe that crap.

So how do you justify the genocides, murders, coups, etc.? Just curious....for the good of the world, huh?

[Fury]

So how do you justify the genocides, murders, coups, etc.? Just curious....for the good of the world, huh?

Let's look at it this way. If the US didn't put its foot down and draw the line in Germany, just how much more of Eastern Europe would have been Soviet controlled and have ended up like the rest of them today? 

Oh wait, I suspect you're going to blame us for the Soviet's actions as well. Yawn. 


The USSR was digested from the inside because they committed the majority of their country's resources to an arms race they couldn't win, which in turn led to their collapse. If they had been able to invest those resources in other things like their economy, the USSR would probably still be around and east Germans would still be getting shot for trying to escape.

[Deicide]

Let's look at it this way. If the US didn't put its foot down and draw the line in Germany, just how much more of Eastern Europe would have been Soviet controlled and have ended up like the rest of them today? 

Oh wait, I suspect you're going to blame us for the Soviet's actions as well. Yawn. 


The USSR was digested from the inside because they committed the majority of their country's resources to an arms race they couldn't win, which in turn led to their collapse. If they had been able to invest those resources in other things like their economy, the USSR would probably still be around and east Germans would still be getting shot for trying to escape.

Was Latin America necessary? Was Indonesia necessary?

Just be honest; do you only care about Americans?

[Fury]

Was Latin America necessary? Was Indonesia necessary?

Just be honest; do you only care about Americans?

You are a broken record. Be honest, do you despise all Americans? Why don't you renounce your citizenship and be done with it?

Do you care about anyone but yourself? I've seen you shit all over Americans AND Koreans on here. Pretty scumbaggish if you ask me. 

[Deicide]

You are a broken record. Be honest, do you despise all Americans? Why don't you renounce your citizenship and be done with it?

Do you care about anyone but yourself? I've seen you shit all over Americans AND Koreans on here. Pretty scumbaggish if you ask me. 

You ever been to Korea? Walk a mile in my shoes.

I like many Americans; most Americans I meet abroad are some of the most interesting people I have ever met. I am not a fan of Americans who claim to be authorities on foreign policy and have never left the country, let alone their own state. If the Infernal Revenue Service starts changing taxation rules I might renounce citizenship. Once the US goes broke (which will likely happen in our lifetime) there might be motivation for that; until then I am indifferent about that idea.

[24KT]

They destroyed themselves by failing to do anything but build weapons. They had no infrastructure, did nothing to make their country better and destroyed their economy doing so. The arms race was what drove them into the ground.

If your theory has any credence, ...and I'm not saying it does, but if it did,
...do you see any similarities between the mistakes the Soviets made then,
...and the actions that certain other nations are making  TODAY?!