Donald Trump is inheriting the scariest tools of aggression imaginable. A new book explores their dark legacy.
Journalist Mark Danner explores how Washington's disastrous policies in the Middle East became standard operating procedure.
(Photo: Berkeley School of Journalism)
"We have fallen into a self-defeating spiral of reaction and counterterror," writes Mark Danner in his new book Spiral: Trapped
in the Forever War. "Our policies, meant to extirpate our enemies, have strengthened and perpetuated them."
Danner - an award winning journalist, professor, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has covered war and revolutions
on three continents - begins Spiral with the aftermath of a 2003 ambush of U.S. troops outside of Fallujah, Iraq.
The insurgents had set off a roadside bomb, killing a paratrooper and wounding several others. "The Americans promptly dismounted
and with their M-16s and M-4s began pouring lead into everything they could see," including a passing truck, he writes. "By week's
end scores of family and close friends of those killed would join the insurgents, for honor demanded they kill Americans to wipe
away family shame."
The incident encapsulates the fundamental contradiction at the heart of George W. Bush's - and with variations, Barack Obama's
- "war on terror": The means used to fight it is the most effective recruiting device that organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
the Shabab, and the Islamic State have.
Targeted assassinations by drones, the use of torture, extra-legal renditions, and the invasions of several Muslim countries have
combined to yield an unmitigated disaster, destabilizing several states, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generating
millions of refugees.
Putting War Crimes on the Menu
Danner's contention is hardly breaking news, nor is he the first journalist to point out that responding to the tactic of terrorism
with military force generates yet more enemies and instability. But Spiral argues that what was once unusual has now become
standard operating procedure, and the Obama administration bears some of the blame for this by its refusal to prosecute violations
of international law.
Torture is a case in point.
In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration introduced so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques that were, in fact, torture under both U.S. and international law. Danner demonstrates that the White House, and a small
cluster of advisers around Vice President Dick Cheney, knew they could be prosecuted under existing laws, so they carefully erected
a "golden shield" of policy memos that would protect them from prosecution for war crimes.
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama announced that he had "prohibited torture." But, as Danner points out, "torture
violates international and domestic law and the notion that our president has the power to prohibit it follows insidiously from the
pretense that his predecessor had the power to order it. Before the war on terror official torture was illegal and an anathema; today
it is a policy choice."
And president-elect Donald Trump has already announced that he intends to bring it back.
There is no doubt that enhanced interrogation was torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross found the techniques "amounted
to torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." How anyone could conclude anything else is hard to fathom. Besides the
waterboarding - for which several Japanese soldiers were executed for using on Allied prisoners during World War II - interrogators
used sleep deprivation, extreme confinement, and "walling." Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, describes having a towel
wrapped around his neck that his questioners used "to swing me around and smash repeatedly against the wall of the [interrogation]
room."
According to a 2004 CIA memo, "An HVD [high value detainee] may be walled one time (one impact with the wall) to make a point,
or twenty to thirty times consecutively when the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question." There were, of
course, some restraints. For instance, the Justice Department refused to approve a CIA proposal to bury people alive.
And, as Danner points out, none of these grotesque methods produced any important information. The claim that torture saved "thousands
of lives" is simply a lie.
There was a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about the whole thing. Zubaydah was designated a "high official" in Al Qaeda,
the number three or four man in the organization. In reality he wasn't even a member, as the Justice Department finally admitted
in 2009. However, because he was considered a higher up in the group, it was assumed he must know about future attacks. If he professed
that he didn't know anything, this was proof that he did, and so he had to be tortured more. "It is a closed circle, self-sufficient,
impervious to disobedient facts," says Danner.
The logic of the Red Queen.
Through the Looking Glass
The Obama administration has also conjured up some interpretations of language that seem straight out of Lewis Carroll.
In defending his use of drone strikes in a 2014 speech at West Point, the president said he only uses them "when we face a continuing,
imminent threat." But "imminent" means "likely to occur at any moment" and is the opposite of "continuing." A leaked Justice Department
memo addresses the incongruity by arguing, "Imminent does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S.
persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."
Apparently the administration has now added "elongated" to "imminent," so that "a president doesn't have to deem the country under
immediate threat to attack before acting on his or her own." As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass
, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
Danner turns the phrase "American exceptionalism" on its head. The U.S. is not "exceptional" because of its democratic institutions
and moral codes, but because it has exempted itself from international law. "Americans, believing themselves to stand proudly for
the rule of law and human rights, have become for the rest of the world a symbol of something quite opposite: a society that imprisons
people indefinitely without trial, kills thousands without due process, and leaves unpunished lawbreaking approved by its highest
officials."
The war has also undermined basic constitutional restrictions on the ability of intelligence agencies and law enforcement to vacuum
up emails and cell phone calls, and has created an extra-legal court system to try insurgents whose oversight and appeal process
in shrouded in secrecy.
Failure by Any Measure
The war on terror - the Obama administration has re-titled it a war on extremism - hasn't been just an illegal and moral catastrophe.
It's a failure by any measure. From 2002 to 2014, the number of deaths from terrorism grew 4,000 percent, the number of jihadist
groups increased by 58 percent, and the membership in those organizations more than doubled.
The war has also generated a massive counterterrorism bureaucracy that has every reason to amp up the politics of fear. And yet
with all the alarm this has created, a total of 24 Americans were killed by terrorism in 2014, fewer than were done in by lighting.
Terrorism, says Danner, is "la politique du pire," the "politics of the worst" or the use of provocation to get your enemy to
overreact. "If you are weak, if you have no army of your own, borrow you enemy's. Provoke your adversary to do your political work
for you," he says. "And in launching the war on terror, eventually occupying two Muslim countries and producing Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib celebrating images of repression and torture, the United States proved all too happy to oblige."
Danner argues that idea you can defeat terrorism - which is really just a tactic used by the less powerful against the more powerful
- with military force is an illusion. It can and does, however, make everything worse.
Even the Department of Defense knows this. In 2004, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board found that:
American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature and support for radical Islamists
while diminishing support for the United States.
Muslim do not "hate our freedoms." They hate our policies, including one-sided support for Israel and for tyrannies in the
Arab world.
American talk of bringing democracy to Muslim countries is self-serving hypocrisy.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't brought democracy to those countries, only chaos and destruction.
Increasingly the war on terrorism (or "extremism," if you prefer) is a secret war fought by drones whose targets are never revealed,
or by Special Operations Forces whose deployments and missions are wrapped in the silence of national security.
And as long as Obama calls for Americans "to look forward as opposed to looking backward," the spiral will continue.
As Danner argues, "It is a sad but immutable fact that the refusal to look backward leaves us trapped in a world without accountability
that [Obama's] predecessor made. In making it possible, indeed likely, that the crimes will be repeated, the refusal to look backward
traps us in the past."
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
Secular stagnation of the US economy might be parcially driven by high (above $50 per barrel) oil prices. That nessesarity
generates high level of unemployment, especially chromic unemployment and "perma-temps".
Masterpiece, offers solution for THE problem of our time/div> I am astonished at the quality of this book, which is about the
eighth book in a personal reading program that included Paul Roberts' The End of Oil, Kenneth Deffeyes' Beyond Oil, Jared Diamon's
Collapse, Cottrell's Energy and Society, Michael Klare's Blood and Oil, and others, all extremely good and relevant books.
The task this author undertakes is to help readers find a new perspective from which to constructively and usefully interpret
inevitable and major changes the world around us. By taking this approach, the author is providing the very essential tool we
need to cope with these changes.
The issue is our ecological footprint.
Catton uses the term "Age of Exuberance" to represent the time since 1492 when first a newly discovered hemisphere and then
the invention of fossil-fuel-driven machines allowed Old-World humans to escape the constraints imposed by a population roughly
at earth's carrying capacity, and instead to grow (and philosophize and emote) expansively.
He then reminds us that we are soon to be squeezed by the twin jaws of excessive population and exhausted resources, as our
current population is utterly dependent on the mining and burning of fossil energy and its use to exploit earth's resources in
general.
In spring 2005, the buzz about "the end of cheap energy" is reaching quite a pitch, and when and if the "peak oil" scenario
(or other environmental limit-event) is reached, the impact on our social / political world will be enormous. Already the US is
brandishing and using its superior weaponry to sieze control of oil assets; this same kind of desperate struggle may well erupt
at all levels of society if we don't find a way to identify the problem, anticipate its consequences, and find solutions.
Catton offers a perspective based on biology / ecology -- not bad, since we are indeed animals in an ecology and we are indeed
subject to the iron laws of nature and physics.
With this perspective we can avoid ending up screaming nonsense at each other when changes begin to get scary. My urgent recommendation
is, read this G.D. book and do it now.
In my opinion, this is a typical colour revolution. The US has so often used the mechanism of "colour revolutions" in other
countries that they were unable to remove this cup from their lips.
On the Internet there have been discovered vacancies for special jobs and groups, for which protesters have been paid. Clinton
is making use of such "love of the people" that she has to buy support. I am curious about when the protesters are going to start
building barricades and setting up tents. Stocks of Victoria Nuland biscuits will certainly come in useful.
As with the Ukrainian events, the driving force of the protest consists of a minority. However, the threats issuing from them
should hardly be ignored. Experience of colour revolutions has repeatedly proven that an active minority is able to win over a passive
majority.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans are looking on with bewilderment and humour. Most Americans say that media lies have been
involved in causing the protests. As you know, until the last moment the media and sociologists in the US preferred that Clinton
win, which has caused this dissonance on the part of the people after the announcement of the election results. Press propaganda
was so strong that a fortnight before the election an Irish bookmaker lost any belief that Trump could win and began to pay out to
those who had put money on Clinton.
Dissonance has served as an additional catalyst in conjunction with bribery. Many Americans in the social media have been wondering
why the protesters have so much free time. The very possibility of protesting has surprised US citizens, because the protest is against
the legitimately elected President. Republicans noted that in 2008 and 2012 there were no protests, although they, too, were not
satisfied that Obama had become President.
A split has been planned in American society, which many have heralded regardless of the outcome of the election. However, the
elite group standing behind Clinton intends to extend this split. Truly, these crazy people are willing to do anything for the sake
of having power over everything.
Trump's elite group is also not sitting by idly, for the police are on their side in that they are preventing riots and arresting
provocateurs. In addition, they have shown that if police measures fail to suppress the protests, then it will come to using unidentified
snipers. Events in Seattle, where unknown persons shot five Clinton supporters, have served as a kind of warning.
Reply
A website that gives a representative presentation of the mentality is
We Hunted The Mammoth . The presentation story is that they are
attacking the "alt right" by mocking the latter. In general, the website is suspiciously ad-heavy, but a perusal of the comments
on a typical blogpost is enlightening-these are the kind of people who get used in a Maidan type of scenario. Note that they are
not trying to make fun of the Maidan.
The attitude is heavily unthinking, and there is a code for commenting, failure of complying with which is a short route to
being banned. The few regular members of their community that do tend to think tend to suffer abuse for their "transgressions"
that makes the stereotypical student Maoist party look sober by comparison. And they completely buy the Russia-phobia, and "Putin
stole our election" is an important topic in the discussion on the top posting. The blog postings are insubstantial button pushing
exercises. These people are a very representative example of the (so-called middle class) North American rejection of the modus
tollens, although that may be giving them too much credit-I doubt that they could enumerate their own premises. Most of the regular
comments are highly emotional exchanges that are frankly embarrassing.
I call them representative. I have had several North American roommates who could easily be among their regular commentators.
As an example, they refuse to see blood-shed, even for the purpose of being aware of ongoing state crimes. But they are very happy
to believe that enemy states are committing vast crimes, thus a certain emotional and pseudo-intellectual posture, reminiscent
of BH Levy. To engage in what appears to be their premises is to become fodder for their abuse. The tragedy is that youth from
poorer families get pulled into these cults, and their fathers don't have funds to retain lawyers when said youth get into trouble
on account of these clowns. It is hipster/kreakl incubation, and the poorer youth that get involved simply become a loss to their
parents and friends. That website is a hipster/kreakl incubator cult.
Reply
Yes, I know what exactly what you mean and recognize the types that you describe.
When I was 20, I dropped out of higher education and drifted for a while, eventually finding my niche in society working
in a local coal mine. I worked there until I was 35, and then I found myself out on my ear - along with about 180,000 others
- in 1985, I left the UK to work in Germany, only to return to higher education in the UK in 1988. That's when I first came
across these intolerant "liberals".
My first altercation with such types, the existence of which I had scarcely noticed some 20 years previously, was the result
of my stating in their company that I, as a devout unbeliever, needed no middle-eastern superstitions and moral strictures
rammed down my throat under the guise of religion.
Because I said "middle-eastern", a young woman then started screaming at me that I was a racist and threatened me with physical
violence, presumably to be meted out by those who thought like her and with the purpose that I be mended of the errors of my
"racist" ways.
Ironically, I left for foreign shores in '85 after having served time in prison following my conviction for public order
offences 2 weeks before the year-long British coal-miners' strike, a dispute in which the police had labelled me as an "activist".
Even more ironically, I remember a police sergeant saying to me when I was arrested for the umpteenth and final time during
the course of a year, which arrest led to my receiving a custodial sentence: "Why don't you just fuck off to Russia and join
your Commie pals?"
Reply
I worked there until I was 35, and then I found myself out on my ear - along with about 180,000 others - in 1985. I left
the UK to work in Germany, only to return to higher education in the UK in 1988. That's when I first came across these intolerant
"liberals"….
…2 weeks before the end of a year-long British coal-miners' strike, a dispute in which the police had labelled me
as an "activist".
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:33 am I never knew any Russians before I arrived here, and it wasn't Russia then: it was the
Soviet Union. I wasn't a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain either, and never was acquainted with any.
I left the SU in June 1990 and when I returned to Mother Russia 2 years later, the USSR was history.
The only former CPSU party member here that I now know really well is my wife, and she was only a party member for
less than a year before the CP was abolished in 1991.
The cop who suggested that I go to join my "Commie friends" in Russia was just a dimwit trying to be smart and who
thought that the bulk of the members of organized labour in the UK were foolishly led by Kremlin agents.
In view of the fact that I had just made an open-air speech in London when I received his boorish advice, he no doubt
took me for one of "the enemy within", as the then prime minister once publicly labelled trade union "militants".
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:41 am And no, I do not regret moving here. In fact, I wish I had come here years earlier
and met my wife when she was in her 20s - she was 32 when we married - rather than living a life that I now, in hindsight,
recognize as having been one of sheer, mind-numbing drudgery, not to mention the inherent dangers and unhealthy nature
of my old job, albeit that I thought I was living the life of Reilly when I was in my 20s and early 30s.
And I never have even the slightest desire to move back to the UK or to anywhere else, for that matter.
Reply
Northern Star says:
November 10, 2016 at 3:10 pm Hmmmm..American MSM is trying to keep the Seattle shootings 'hushed up'…so to speak.. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/4-shot-during-seattle-anti-trump-protest
When gfs or bfs start dying….people are gonna start to shoot back…then it's on….
My read of it is that the heavily militarized American police are decidedly with Trump. not to mention National Guard and Army
Reserves and regular Army combat units if needed.
So it would be a bloodbath for the anti Trump people ..initially…but then again those who were to become partisan guerlla units
in Nazi occupied europe..at first suffered huge losses under the SS and Wehrmacht reprisals and attacks…but then the tide turned….
Reply
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:25 am Well, not to burst your bubble, N.S., but the anti-Nazi partisans in Europe never stood
a chance against the German war machine. A few underground spies and resistors here and there can do basically zero against
a machine. And all that propaganda about the so-called "French Resistance" is basically a B.S. myth creaed by losers trying
to regain a shred of dignity retroactively.
The only "tide that turned" for the "Resistance" was when the Red Army was approaching, and the underground could finally
get some real support on the ground.
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:20 am That's very interesting. According to that Post piece, at least 20 Trump electors would have
to become "faithless" and vote for Clinton, in order for her to get the presidency.
I doubt if this could happen, but you never know.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 10, 2016 at 9:18 pm That's referred to in the translation of the article "Clinton is preparing a colour revolution
in the United States" I posted above:
Trump's elite group is also not sitting by idly, for the police are on their side in that they are preventing riots and
arresting provocateurs. In addition, they have shown that if police measures fail to suppress the protests, then it will come
to using unidentified snipers. Events in Seattle, where unknown persons shot five Clinton supporters, have served as a kind
of warning .
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:50 am This bit is alarming: Trump, who has been complimentary about Putin and Russia in a manner that prompted accusations from his Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton that he was a "puppet", has in the past mused about having Snowden killed. Trump's major national security
ally, the retired general and former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, oversaw a highly speculative DIA report
that claimed Snowden took from the NSA a larger trove of documents than ever confirmed based on what Snowden could access as
a contract systems administrator.
"Snowden is a spy who has caused great damage in the US. A spy in the old days, when our country was respected and strong,
would be executed," Trump tweeted in 2014.
I am really impressed by Snowden's response to this, his quiet bravery, and his overall philosophical outlook. He is a real
man and a real thinker.
Reply
"Der Untergang" was a 2004 award winning film depicting Hitler's last days in the Berlin Führerbunker as the victorious Red Army
was drawing ever closer.
There is a memorable scene in the film where Hitler goes into a magnificent rant against some generals whilst outside in a corridor
his entourage, secretaries, servants and lackeys listen on dismayed. This scene has been dubbed many times and gone viral with subtitles
showing that Hitler is ranting against more mundane, present-day events.
I am sure there will soon be another "Der Untergang" clip done showing Hitler ranting on about Trump's victory/Clinton's defeat.
Here is a typical example of such a mischievously subtitled rant that shows Hitler going lulu about the UK Brexit vote:
The 2016 picture (above) was allegedly taken yesterday, Thursday,10th November, and claims to show White House staffers witnessing
Donald Trump's visit to Obama on Thursday.
It went viral after having first appeared thus:
However, the photo was actually taken when President Obama spoke from the Rose Garden the day before,on Wednesday, 9th November,
congratulating Trump on winning the election.
Trump was not there.
Nevertheless, the gang looks glum.
Bear in mind, that sad-sack in the middle always has a face that looks like a slapped arse.
Reply
Nonetheless, the plan is unlikely to succeed. According to the Daily Dot, at least 29 states, along with the District of
Columbia, require electors to vote for the candidate who won their state's vote. In U.S. history, there have only been 157 "faithless
electors," who defy their state's vote. That's less than 1 percent, and 71 of those 157 faithless electors changed their vote
because of the death of the candidate their state had voted for.
In fact, I read earlier today that Clinton's majority of 200,000 in the popular vote represents about 1% of the electorate.
Reminds me of when much was made of by the MSM that protests in Moscow against alleged discrepancies in the presidential ballot
peaked at about 800,000 (a very liberal estimate - no pun intended). That represents about 0.5% of the Moscow population, and
none of the protesters were bused in, of course, or received payment: the very thought!
Reply
So whose president have those folks in the counties that appear red below?
These California kreakles know full well that the system of an electoral college was put into place in order to prevent the opinions
of voters in the populous centres overwhelming those in the backwoods, that on the popular vote count Clinton won by a margin of
about 300,000 in fewer states but more populous states, whereas Trump, though having won fewer votes than Clinton, won far more states
than did his opponent. They know that the president is chosen according to the number of electors' votes, i../ the votes of states,
that are cast for a presidential candidate.
They know that. They know the rules, the system. They just do not like the result.
And if the boot were on the other foot, would thy howl "Unfair"?
Reply
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 8:28 am Of course these kreakles would and did howl "unfair".
When Gore won the popular vote but W became Prez, they screamed bloody murder and vowed to abolish the electoral college. But
then they never did it.
Many people in America have called for the abolition of the electoral college and switching to popular vote. It might happen
someday. The reality is that it would take a constitutional amendment to pull off. And that takes a lot of work and organization.
Which everybody is too lazy to undertake.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:08 am When by asking: "And if the boot were on the other foot, would they howl "Unfair"?" I meant
would the Hillary supporters have thought the system flawed if she had won the electoral college vote and had, therefore, become
president, but Trump had won the popular vote and not been elected president.
The staffer, named 'Zach,' showed her up in front of 150 DNC employees
He called her 'part of the problem' and Hillary Clinton 'a flawed candidate'
Zach also blamed the DNC for 'plotting' against Bernie Sanders
Sanders could have taken Trump due to anti-status-quo attitude, fans say
Democrats are divided into Clinton elites and Sanders progressives
The party must now embrace Sanders' vision, insiders say
####
By the rivers of Klintonshire, where the shock sets in,
Ye-eah we cried, for we stiffed dear Bernie…
I wonder if the British Labor party is taking any note over what was done to Bernie and the self-inflicted consequences? Jez we
can!
Reply
marknesop
says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:46 am I, too, believe that Sanders could have beaten Trump. But that's based on projections, which
turned out to be completely wrong for Clinton, so who knows? But I believe Clinton's demonizations and hysteria mobilized Trump
voters, where Sanders would likely have taken a less confrontational stand.
marknesop says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:28 am
It's a pity Russia chose to go that route, as it confers unmerited recognition. They might have
been better to just go with a list entitled, "Americans We Think Are Dozy And Delusional". McFaul would certainly have made that
one, as would most of his contemporaries.
Reply
Moscow Exile says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:47 am
A source in Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed to the TASS news agency that
McFaul has indeed been added to the Kremlin's sanctions list. "Michael McFaul is in fact on our 'mirror' list of sanctions,
which he knew," the source told TASS. "He was added to it in response to the U.S. visa sanctions on Russian citizens. Only
Michael McFaul is wrong, as usual: he wasn't put on the list for being 'close to Obama,' as he wrote, but for actively taking
part in the destruction of bilateral relations and his consistent campaign lobbying to pressure Russia."
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's
fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?
Ah. They plan to
raise the age at which you
qualify for a pension
, doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards
right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching
pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about
how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.
This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before
releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to
sell off its agricultural land
in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if.
Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of
getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth
plus a chink in Europe's armor against
GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes
of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever
health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on
providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization
of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their
families next!
That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds
so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with
the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social
Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with
shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive
unless
people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely
net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just
depressed myself.
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only
potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too
small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government
spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of
money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and
Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and
development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have
jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other
government goods and services or through their taxes.
But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and
suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest.
In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds
and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.
Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't
want the money to go towards social welfare spending.
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as
a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I
know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole
wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went
sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons
for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending
customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is
usually absorbed by the cost of living.
But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well.
In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty
oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow
it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma
in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This
seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems
grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued
Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya,
Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.
He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and
special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and
always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had
a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that
he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing
tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you
tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door
this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because
he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated,
I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very
blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building
resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.
Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters
if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their
weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates
as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."
Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have
been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was
not.
Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism,
and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody
knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships,
and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and
always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had
a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that
he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing
tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you
tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door
this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because
he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated,
I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very
blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building
resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.
Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters
if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their
weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates
as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."
Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have
been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was
not.
Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism,
and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody
knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships,
and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naďveté here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
"... I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. ..."
"... The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office. ..."
"... The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade. ..."
"... Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated. ..."
"... All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented". ..."
"... Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election. And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12 It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49 Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54 Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that! Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will. The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that. Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13. LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57 Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week. The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55 The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...] In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source ) I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost. Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions. Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18 Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny? Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23 Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that. And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering. And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now. And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then. And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time. And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy. fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58 The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails? Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine. That is called freedom of press. What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59 Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?... How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03 Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence
operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is
willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern
for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to]
box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister
Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."
I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria.
There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special
forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations.
That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants
to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me.
The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out
of office.
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in
what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered
by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmaneuvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never
go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged
to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him
absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction
indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know
the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador
HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.
Share
No, no, you see you just put the word "consensus" before a pathetically transparent lie and then
apparently it magically becomes evidence based and well sourced...
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the
manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented".
Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we
should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events
may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony.
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'
Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's
main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did. Share
I think all American presidents are anti Russian. Sounds like you was born 2005 or you just doing
your British citizenship. You don't know much so read this
Life in the uk test Share
Facebook
Twitter
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.
Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't?
What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU?
Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration?
Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma
Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!! Share
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American
military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they
request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion
was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead
of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about
concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in
the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the
American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with
Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution
says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin
for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama
is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin.
Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build
up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation).
I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.
It starts to look as if Putin and Trump wipe their shoes on Obama at this point, and it is Obama
who asked for it. Embarrassing. Share
Facebook
Twitter
I've read Guardian's article on Russia's response to Obama's tantrum. Yep, it's clear why Obama
lost to Russians and can't cope with it. Now use your own advice, Barry. Go to the back of the
queue. Share
Facebook
Twitter
They were gossipy emails ffs. If that was all it took for H. Clinton to lose to Trump, then the
Democrats really need to do an autopsy on itself. Or, here's a thought, VISIT the states where
you need the support to win. This is becoming soooooo boring! Share
Facebook
Twitter
Well what a spiteful, petty like man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his
side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring
relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Few words left.....the future presidency and its administration is an absolute farce....a 'free
for all' for Trump and his cronies. Watch the rich get even richer and the poor get screwed. America
chose....they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't are going to be screwed as well. Lack of tact and ignorance
of diplomacy could ignite a power keg. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The problem is no one trusts the agencies you mentioned anymore based on their past record....
As regards the FBI being no friend of the democrats, didn't they just let her off for storing
thousands of classified emails on a private server?
Besides, the whole world knows that the US have been sponsoring changes of Govs around the world
so it comes across as completely hypocritical.
This appears to be a smokescreen for numerous embarrassing issues relating to the election
& foreign policy.
For the record, I'm not a putin bot or fan if DT. So tired of the same old hackie responses
to anyone who questions the narrative. It's getting really boring. Share
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration.
But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make
bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers. Share
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers
around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela
Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America
is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is
in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system
at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the
link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she
did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before
the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians
- the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it
was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him
a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin
are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated
Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan. Share
He is a great tactician. It certainly makes Obama look less threatening.
But he is a horrible strategist. A good strategy doesn't surprise. It makes plain to one's
opponent that things will only get worse--and one had better accommodate sooner rather than later.
It was at the heart of Reagan's strategy, which destroyed the SU.
And this is exactly the situation that Putin faces with or without sanctions. The renewed fracking
is going to keep oil and gas at lows not seen since the 90s. What was interesting was that even
Putin's stooge in the UK, Krassnov, said that Russia faced a very dire economic future. Whatever
Trump does, few Republicans are going to be accommodating after:
1) Crimea and Donbass
2) Blasting Aleppo to smithereens
3) Trying to throw the US election
The latter is an existential threat to every lawmaker, and they are hopping mad at the thought
that it could happen again.
Ironically, Putin is proving ever more clearly that Obama should have used air power in 2013,
as Putin has done in 2016.
It is a lesson that will not be lost on a Republican Congress.
1) situation caused by US Newland causing havoc in Ukraine by spending millions on regime change.
2) caused by US arming terrorists
3) lol - no serious person believes the Reds had any influence. It was the candidate. (If interference
in someone else's election was an international crime, the US would be in the dock every 6 months!)
The fool trump cannot do any worse than what's been occurring the last 15 years! Wars, invasions,
terrorist support and dossiers on mythical WMDs! It's been a disaster. US foreign policy is heavily
influenced by the CFR. He won't have a say in it. They will continue in the same diabolical fashion.
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never
did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president
of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible
before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will
be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper
baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks
did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by
falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee
was more likely the source. Share
Of course everyone on here decrying Obama's actions knows far more and understands the cyber-attacks/election
interference issue far better than the combined resources and considered judgement of the US intelligence
community.
Of course you do. Goes without saying, all you have to do is cite an example of incompetence or
malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past and you rest your case.
Or maybe it's like parents who can't accept their child has been a bully or a general shit at
school. If you are a fan of the Trump-Putin axis you'll go through any self-deceiving contortions
necessary to avoid accepting reality.
Stop defending the indefensible. It happened, Obama acted (albeit slowly) and now Trump quite
properly will be expected to justify any softening of position.
Talking about self-deceiving contortions while performing your own mental gymnastics. It's quite
a show.
You say "stop defending the indefensible", while waving away any past instances of malfeasance
by US intelligence agencies in the past. To be explicit: yes, that includes meddling in other
countries' political affairs. Share
Facebook
Twitter
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on
the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the
only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any
country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in
the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.
Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular
vote by 3 million.
Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of
other countries over the past 60 years.
On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said
in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today
are long overdue.
That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension
with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the
US election.
And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President
because he is attacking the outsiders. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next
think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who
would have though that!
Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white
house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies-
rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins
to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling
the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather
than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance
of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if
you will.
The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able
to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger,
Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete.
It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with
the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or
Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans
aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained
was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which
the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that.
Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy
people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or
negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But,
Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will
receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate
for the Russians on January 13.
Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this
week.
The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received
this many Presidential press conferences. Share
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries
– it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political
scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election
of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include
general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]
In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates
the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote
share. (
Source )
I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those
who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens;
they always come home to roost.
Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not
conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have
now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary
finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends
over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.
Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign?
You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny?
Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless
to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden
years. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president,
for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in
53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist'
ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think
how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead
than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.
And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European',
but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the
Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution
and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are
suffering.
And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the
Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's
no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust
anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign
agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs
in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any
amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.
And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under
Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist
government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt
and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to
Honduras called it a coup at the time.
And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and
western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources
like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists
have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under
the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity
of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security
in case of hacking Democrat's emails?
Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton
lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally
tonnes of free info??! Share
Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did
choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.
Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit
on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something
that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican
shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...
All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone
that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not
a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre
by Obama with no trouble.
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or
decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent
of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored
increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S.
democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29
percent not sure).
The poll overall seemed to
suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent
years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria,
compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of
35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East,
while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.
But the poll also indicated the American people don't
want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent
favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it
constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.
And the poll suggested Americans view China with a
certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no.
But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42
percent favored the term competitor.
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington
D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder
Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off
with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com
on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks,
not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published
before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about
party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild
card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls
(Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).
When Peńa Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives,
hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with
a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia
and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history
of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political
campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peńa Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a
team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves
of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peńa Nieto,
a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle
of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites
and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that
spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't
cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could
hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package,
at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and
defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda
says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met
only a few.
His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia,
Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted
through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's
National Advancement Party would comment.
The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world
doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only
develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed
into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business
it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population.
Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!
Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able
to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the
21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda,
rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says
in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily
fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for
charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal
data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed
to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and
gather support for a reduced sentence.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant
who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal,
and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship,
but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice,
it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all.
There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm
not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the
completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted
third parties as a secret "insurance policy."
We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout
the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive
online campaign was staged against Trump.
Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political
operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's
turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought
were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television
and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all
relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and
direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile
pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the
public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that
people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to
make people believe almost anything."
Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion
around topics such as Peńa Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with
views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter
bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that
the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency
issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.
While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is
also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false
evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing
- it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.
Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and
resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of
how NOT to hack an election.
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.
(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government
all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew
all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't
obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and
petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running
the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to
be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most
people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't
give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented
to them.
Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."
Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning
into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with
everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's
entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection,
rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed,
at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to
say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war
of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/
this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of
the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.
all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.
Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been
spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything,
without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
"... Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend much of their time begging the rich for contributions. ..."
"... Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph 9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below the official poverty line." ..."
"... The current foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law, and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those with capital or in a position to seek rents. This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them. ..."
"... the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. ..."
"... if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non rich you are simply proposing theft. ..."
"... what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich. ..."
"... you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable security for their savings.) ..."
"... made by the ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome. ..."
"... The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. ..."
"... A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues" ..."
The content should be familiar to AngryBear
readers. A majority of Americans are alarmed by high and increasing inequality and support government
action to reduce inequality. However, none of the important 2016 candidates has expressed any willingness
to raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans want to cut them and Clinton (and a spokesperson) dodge
the question.
Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but
generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly
state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend
much of their time begging the rich for contributions.
No suprise to anyone who has been paying attention except for the fact that it is on the front
page of www.nytimes.com and the article is printed in the business section not the opinion section.
Do click the link - it is brief, to the point, solid, alarming and a must read.
I clicked one of the links and found weaker evidence than I expected for Scheiber's view (which
of course I share
"By contrast, more than half of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats believe the "government
should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," according to a
Gallup poll of about 1,000 adults in April 2013."
It is a small majority 52% favor and 47% oppose. This 52 % is noticeably smaller than the solid
majorities who have been telling Gallup that high income individuals pay less than their fair share
of taxes (click and search
for Gallup on the page).
I guess this isn't really surprising - the word "heavy" is heavy maaaan and "redistribute" evokes
the dreaded welfare (and conservatives have devoted gigantic effort to giving it pejorative connotations).
The 52% majority is remarkable given the phrasing of the question. But it isn't enough to win elections,
since it is 52% of adults which corresponds to well under 52% of actual voters.
My reading is that it is important for egalitarians to stress the tax cuts for the non rich and
that higher taxes on the rich are, unfortunately, necessary if we are to have lower taxes on the
non rich without huge budget deficits. This is exactly Obama's approach.
Comments (87)
Jerry Critter
March 29, 2015 10:40 pm
Get rid of tax breaks that only the wealthy can take advantage of and perhaps everyone will
pay their fair share. The same goes for corporations.
amateur socialist
March 30, 2015 11:42 am
Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph
9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government
should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below
the official poverty line."
I'm fine with raising people's taxes by increasing their wages. A story I heard on NPR recently
indicated that a single person needs to make about $17-19 an hour to cover most basic necessities
nowadays (the story went on to say that most people in that situation are working 2 or more jobs
to get enough income, a "solution" that creates more problems with health/stress etc.). A full
time worker supporting kids needs more than $20.
You double the minimum wage and strengthen people's rights to organize union representation.
Tax revenues go up (including SS contributions btw) and we add significant growth to the economy
with the increased purchasing power of workers. People can go back to working 40-50 hours a week
and cut back on moonlighting which creates new job opportunities for the younger folks decimated
by this so called recovery.
Win Win Win Win. And the poor overburdened millionaires don't have to have their poor tax fee
fees hurt.
Mark Jamison, March 30, 2015 8:09 pm
How about if we get rid of the "re" and call it what it is "distribution". The current
foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law,
and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those
with capital or in a position to seek rents.
This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the
poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them.
Democrats cede the rhetoric to the Right when they allow the discussion to be about redistribution.
Even talk of inequality without reference to the basic legal constructs that are rigged to create
slanted outcomes tend to accepted premises that are in and of themselves false.
The issue shouldn't be rejiggering things after the the initial distribution but creating a
system with basic rules that level the opportunity playing field.
coberly, March 30, 2015 11:03 pm
Thank You Mark Jamison!
An elegant, informed writer who says it better than I can.
But here is how I would say it:
Addressing "inequality" by "tax the rich" is the wrong answer and a political loser.
Address inequality by re-criminalizing the criminal practices of the criminal rich. Address
inequality by creating well paying jobs with government jobs if necessary (and there is necessary
work to be done by the government), with government protection for unions, with government policies
that make it less profitable to off shore
etc. the direction to take is to make the economy more fair . actually more "free" though you'll
never get the free enterprise fundamentalists to admit that's what it is. You WILL get the honest
rich on your side. They don't like being robbed any more than you do.
But you will not, in America, get even poor people to vote to "take from the rich to give to
the poor." It has something to do with the "story" Americans have been telling themselves since
1776. A story heard round the world.
That said, there is nothing wrong with raising taxes on the rich to pay for the government
THEY need as well as you. But don't raise taxes to give the money to the poor. They won't do it,
and even the poor don't want it except as a last resort, which we hope we are not at yet.
urban legend, March 31, 2015 2:07 am
Coberly, you are dead-on. Right now, taxation is the least issue. Listen to Jared Bernstein
and Dean Baker: the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating
demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. Minimum
wage will help at the margins to push incomes up, and it's the easiest initial legislative sell,
but the public will support policies - mainly big-big infrastructure modernization in a country
that has neglected its infrastructure for a generation - that signal a firm commitment to full
employment.
It's laying right there for the Democrats to pick it up. Will they? Having policies that are
traditional Democratic policies will not do the job. For believability - for convincing voters
they actually have a handle on what has been wrong and how to fix it - they need to have a story
for why we have seem unable to generate enough jobs for over a decade. The neglect of infrastructure
- the unfilled millions of jobs that should have gone to keeping it up to date and up to major-country
standards - should be a big part of that story. Trade and manufacturing, to be sure, is the other
big element that will connect with voters. Many Democrats (including you know who) are severely
compromised on trade, but they need to find a way to come own on the right side with the voters.
coberly, March 31, 2015 10:52 am
Robert
i wish you'd give some thought to the other comments on this post.
if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non
rich you are simply proposing theft. if you were proposing raising taxes on the rich to provide
reasonable welfare to those who need it you would be asking the rich to contribute to the strength
of their own country and ultimately their own wealth.
i hope you can see the difference.
it is especially irritating to me because many of the "non rich" who want their taxes cut make
more than twice as much as i do. what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed
just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich.
"the poor" in this country do not pay a significant amount of taxes (Social Security and Medicare
are not "taxes," merely an efficient way for us to pay for our own direct needs . as long as you
call them taxes you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave
the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety
and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable
security for their savings.)
Kai-HK, April 4, 2015 12:23 am
coberly,
Thanks for your well-reasoned response.
You state, 'i personally am not much interested in the "poor capitalist will flee the country
if you tax him too much." in fact i'd say good riddance, and by the way watch out for that tarriff
when you try to sell your stuff here.'
(a) What happens after thy leave? Sure you can get one-time 'exit tax' but you lose all the
intellectual capital (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs leaving and taking their
intellectual property and human capital with them). These guys are great jobs creators it will
not only be the 'bad capitalists' that leave but also many of the 'job creating' good ones.
(b) I am less worried about existing job creating capitalists in America; what about the future
ones? The ones that either flee overseas and make their wealth there or are already overseas and
then have a plethora of places they can invest but why bother investing in the US if all they
are going to do is call me a predator and then seize my assets and or penalise me for investing
there? Right? It is the future investment that gets impacted not current wealth per se.
You also make a great point, 'the poor are in the worst position with respect to shifting their
tax burden on to others. the rich do it as a matter of course. it would be simpler just to tax
the rich there are fewer of them, and they know what is at stake, and they can afford accountants.
the rest of us would pay our "taxes" in the form of higher prices for what we buy.'
Investment capital will go where it is best treated and to attract investment capital a market
must provide a competitive return (profit margin or return on investment). Those companies and
investment that stay will do so because they are able to maintain that margin .and they will do
so by either reducing wages or increasing prices. Where they can do neither, their will exit the
market.
That is why, according to research, a bulk of the corporate taxation falls on workers and consumers
as a pass-on effect. The optimum corporate tax is 0. This will be the case as taxation increases
on the owners of businesses and capital .workers, the middle class, and the poor pay it. The margins
stay competitive for the owners of capital since capital is highly mobile and fungible.Workers
and the poor less so.
But thanks again for the tone and content of your response. I often get attacked personally
for my views instead of people focusing on the issue. I appreciate the respite.
K
coberly, April 4, 2015 12:34 pm
kai
yes, but you missed the point.
i am sick of the whining about taxes. it takes so much money to run the country (including
the kind of pernicious poverty that will turn the US into sub-saharan africa. and then who will
buy their products.
i can't do much about the poor whining about taxes. they are just people with limited understanding,
except for their own pressing needs. the rich know what the taxes are needed for, they are just
stupid about paying them. of course they would pass the taxes through to their customers. the
customers would still buy what they need/want at the new price. leaving everyone pretty much where
they are today financially. but the rich would be forced to be grownup about "paying" the taxes,
and maybe the politics of "don't tax me tax the other guy" would go away.
as for the sainted bill gates. there are plenty of other people in this country as smart as
he is and would be happy to sell us computer operating systems and pay the taxes on their billion
dollars a year profits.
nothing breaks my heart more than a whining millionaire.
Kai-HK
April 4, 2015 11:32 pm
Sure I got YOUR point, it just didn't address MY points as put forth in MY original post. And
it still doesn't.
More importantly, you have failed to defend YOUR point against even a rudimentary challenge.
K
coberly, April 5, 2015 12:45 pm
kai,
rudimentary is right.
i have read your "points" about sixteen hundred times in the last year alone. made by the
ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome.
and i have learned there is no point in trying to talk to true believers.
William Ryan, May 13, 2015 4:43 pm
Thanks again Coberly for your and K's very thoughtful insight. You guys really made me think
hard today and I do see your points about perverted capitalism being a big problem in US. I still
do like the progressive tax structure and balanced trade agenda better.
I realize as you say that we cannot compare US to Hong Kong just on size and scale alone. Without
all the obfuscation going Lean by building cultures that makes people want to take ownership and
sharing learning and growing together is a big part of the solution Ford once said "you cannot
learn in school what the world is going to do next".
Also never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with
experience. The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. It's because no matter
what they do nothing get done about it. With all this manure around there must be a pony somewhere!
"
A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real
issues". FDR.
Rich people pay rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people
Earth doesn't matter, people don't matter, even economy doesn't matter . The only thing
that matters is R.W. nut bar total ownership of everything.
I'm sorry I put profits ahead of people, greed above need and the rule of gold above God's
golden rules.
I try to stay away from negative people who have a problem for every solution
We need capitalism that is based on justice and greater corporate responsibility. I do
not speak nor do I comprehend assholian.
"If you don't change direction , you may end up where you are headed". Lao-Tzu.
"The true strength of our nation comes not from our arm or wealth but from our ideas".
Obama..
Last one.
"If the soul is left to darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not the one
who commits the sins, but the one who caused the darkness". Victor Hugo.
coberly , May 16, 2015 9:57 pm
kai
as a matter of fact i disagree with the current "equality" fad at least insofar as it implies
taking from the rich and giving to the poor directly.
i don't believe people are "equal" in terms of their economic potential. i do beleive they
are equal in terms of being due the respect of human beings.
i also believe your simple view of "equality" is a closet way of guarantee that the rich can
prey upon the poor without interruption.
humans made their first big step in evolution when they learned to cooperate with each other
against the big predators.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 12:10 am
it is mildly progressive up to about $75,000 per year where the rate hits 30%. But from there
up to $1.542 million the rate only increases to 33.3%.
I call that very flat!
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 11:20 am
"i assume there are people in this country who are truly poor. as far as i know they
don't pay taxes."
Read my reference and you will see that the "poor" indeed pay taxes, just not much income tax
because they don't have much income. You are fixated on income when we should be considering all
forms of taxation.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 9:25 pm
Oh Kai, cut the crap. Paying taxes Is nothing like slavery. My oh my, how did we ever survive
with a top tax rate of around 90%, nearly 3 times the current rate? Some people would even say
that the economy then was pretty great and the middle class was doing terrific. So stop the deflection
and redirection. I think you just like to see how many words you can write. Sorry, but history
is not on your side.
Some day the figures of case infusion to buy Soviet elite will be known. the rumors are the over
billion of dollars was spend to bytthe KGB brass and some members of Politburo.
Not the the USSR economic model was viable. But "return to NEP" was possible without the dissolution
of the country. The tragic coincidence was the the collapse happened when neoliberal idea
became popular. This period was the period of Triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe.
and that inflicted on the former USSR republic looting on the scale that happened only in middle ages.
Many Soviet people paid with life and thier helath for this mass scale social experiment inflicted on
them by Harvard academic crooks/henchmen, see
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic
rape of Russia for details.
It's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, and in that time the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) has generated tens of thousands of internal papers, roundtables, and even
documentaries on the issue. Like most intellectual products in the mainland, 95 percent of these
have been worthless regurgitations of the political line of the day by
mediocre careerists
. But the official angle on the collapse, which once seemed to be pushing the country toward
reforms that were more sensitive to public needs and opening the economy, has shifted sharply in
the last few years. Today, the lessons Beijing is drawing seem likely to keep sending it backward.
It's no surprise that the party is obsessed with the collapse of its former rival and ideological
partner. The most bizarre thing about the
brief spate of articles in 2012 and 2013 describing the newly appointed CCP general secretary,
Xi Jinping, as a potential Mikhail Gorbachev for China was that some of the writers seemed to think
they were paying him a compliment. In China, though, Gorbachev is seen not as a far-sighted reformer
but as a disastrous failure, a man who led his country, and his party, to national calamity. That's
not an unfair view: China has no desire to lose a quarter of its territory, watch GDP drop by 40
percent, and see male life expectancy cut short by seven years, as Russia did in the 1990s.
Before the Soviet leader's failed gambit, though, many Chinese looked favorably on Gorbachev.
The Soviet Union and China had tentatively made up after their vicious - and
nearly world-ending - split in the 1960s, and both were looking to learn from the other's experiences.
Moscow was increasingly convinced that China's "reform and opening up" was a way forward for its
moribund economy, and Chinese intellectuals, inside and outside the party, were intrigued by the
possibilities offered by glasnost and perestroika - the pillars of Gorbachev's
heralded reform platform.
The Soviet collapse prompted hard self-reflection, albeit couched within the even harder limits
of Chinese political correctness.
The Soviet collapse prompted hard self-reflection, albeit couched within the even harder limits of
Chinese political correctness. (Even in relatively liberal moments - such as the fervent intellectual
debates of the late 1980s - raising fundamental questions about national identity, the leadership
of the party, and the correctness of socialism was a risky move for anyone inside the system.) What
were the causes? Was China inevitably heading down the same path if it didn't change its ways?
Virtually every aspect of the early People's Republic, from the organization of its railways to
its party structure to its ethnic minority policy, was copied from the Soviet Union. As Marxist theorists
saw it, like the Soviets, China had leapfrogged from peasant feudalism over industrial capitalism
straight into socialism. But in reality, both slapped a veneer of socialism over a fusion of new
nationalism and old-fashioned empire. And both followed mass famine with cultural revolution (originally
a Soviet
term ) and bloody party purges.
At first, part of the Chinese response was to use the Soviet example to spur further reform inside
the party itself. As political scientist David Shambaugh has
argued , critical analysis of Soviet failings pointed to a top-heavy, incompetent, and stagnant
Soviet Communist Party and prompted efforts in Beijing to transform the CCP into a more modern, flexible,
and resilient organization. That didn't mean sweeping democratic reform, but it meant a party more
sensitive to public opinion - and more interested in steering it, through both subtle and unsubtle
means, in the right direction.
There were also more immediate shifts. Fear of the popular changes unleashed across Eastern Europe
had already played a powerful role in prompting the brutal crackdown on protesters in Beijing and
elsewhere in 1989. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, deeply conscious of the role that rising
nationalism, from Ukraine to Azerbaijan, had played in bringing down the Soviet Union, policy around
China's autonomous regions and ethnic minorities tightened, and the language shifted. Minzu
, the Chinese term for non-ethnic-Han groups, shifted from being "nationalities" in official
translations to "ethnic minorities." Meanwhile, worries over Soviet economic stagnation boosted Chinese
leader Deng Xiaoping's final big push for economic reform during his 1992 "Southern Tour" of the
country's newly booming commercial cities.
Running parallel to this, however, was always a counternarrative that suggested the disaster hadn't
come from inside but outside. It was the reformers who had caused the fall of a superpower, this
argument went, by shaking faith in the system through acknowledging the Soviet Union's
past crimes , letting in dangerous foreign influences, and abandoning hard-line Marxism. This
idea has now received official stamp from the very top of Beijing's leadership, and one can see it
reverberating through the
new wave of paranoia about foreign influence, reassertion of party power, and hostility to civil
society.
As Xi himself put it in a
2013 speech : "Their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, 'the ruler's flag over the
city tower' changed overnight. It's a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet
Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else
is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the party's organizations
on all levels."
The new line is simple: blame the West and blame the Soviet leaders - like Gorbachev - who let
the West in. It's one reason why China has pushed through harsh new laws designed to force out foreign
nongovernmental organizations, why the national press is getting shriller and shriller in its hostility
to the United States, and why censorship is worsening. At the same time, there's no sign of the political
reforms that some Western observers once
confidently predicted .
What's behind this shift? Part of it seems to be Xi's personal conviction in the essential truth
of the party - and in his own right to rule as a
revolutionary scion . That would be enough to shift the entire course of discussion by itself,
in a country where following the leader's signals is second nature for anyone who wants to climb
the ladder. (It's a habit that carries over into other contexts: Before President-elect Donald Trump's
Taiwan call, visiting Chinese groups in Washington were ending speeches with, "Together, we can make
America and China great again.")
But Xi's own convictions have been empowered by the events of the last decade.
The deepest Chinese fear is of regime change similar to the kinds that swept across the former
Soviet space and let loose the Arab Spring.
The deepest Chinese fear is of regime change similar to the kinds that swept across the former
Soviet space and let loose the Arab Spring. "Color revolution" is a useful phrase, because it detaches
these events from true, rightful revolution - of the kind that made the People's Republic of China
and all its "revolutionary martyrs" - and puts it firmly in the realm of an organized, U.S.-led conspiracy
designed to destabilize potential opponents.
The belief that all of these revolutions were U.S.-orchestrated plots isn't just propaganda, but
sincerely held; I argued with a People's Daily editor after a visit to Iran just after the
Green Revolution in which he'd claimed that the Iranians loved their regime. "All the so-called protesters
were CIA spies!" he told me.
In Beijing, American promotion of democracy and human rights is seen as just a tool to ensure
U.S. dominance and one that therefore has to be constantly resisted. "
Peaceful
evolution ," the nationalist tabloid Global Times proclaimed, was just another name
for color revolution. Even seemingly harmless cultural products have been caught up in this.
Zootopia , a recent Disney animated children's film, explained a People's Liberation Army newspaper,
was an
American plot to weaken China's morale.
The hostility toward the color revolutions and the chaos they've unleashed has thus been projected
backward. The Soviet fall, once seen at least in part as a result of the Communist Party's own failings,
has become reinterpreted as a deliberate U.S. plot and a moral failure to hold the line against Western
influence. That has ended what was once a powerful spur to reform - meaning that, barring a major
change in leadership, the likely course of Chinese politics over the next few years will be further
xenophobia, even more power to the party, and an unwillingness to talk about the harder lessons of
history.
Developing nations continued to be the largest buyers of arms in 2015, with Qatar
signing deals for more than $17 billion in weapons last year, followed by Egypt,
which agreed to buy almost $12 billion in arms, and Saudi Arabia, with over $8
billion in weapons purchases.
Although global tensions and terrorist threats have shown few signs of diminishing,
the total size of the global arms trade dropped to around $80 billion in 2015 from
the 2014 total of $89 billion, the study found. Developing nations bought $65 billion
in weapons in 2015, substantially lower than the previous year's total of $79
billion.
The United States and France increased their overseas weapons sales in 2015, as
purchases of American weapons grew by around $4 billion and France's deals increased
by well over $9 billion.
The report, "
Conventional Arms
Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015
," was prepared by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and delivered
to legislators last week. The annual review is considered the most comprehensive
assessment of global arms sales available in an unclassified form. The report adjusts
for inflation, so the sales totals are comparable year to year.
"... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal
play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then
Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
"... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from
Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
"... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing
nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare
queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these
tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog
whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard
on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George
Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the
first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and
plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor
the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class
enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration,
and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes
for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and
aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities
are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support
and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic
continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm
for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care
reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never
before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle
class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics
will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the
American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States
that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play
for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all
that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote
big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade'
and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create
jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in
the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements
that would not otherwise exist.
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral
States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal
play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and
equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus
no less then Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation
from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right
wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
With the election of Donald Trump to
the presidency, the American public opted for change. A
new poll
from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National
Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh
start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many
areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the
presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who
don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine
the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find
that other Americans are persuadable.
Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made
Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest
of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced
that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that
American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it
has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the
successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya,
have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.
The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35
percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle
East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand.
When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent
indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they
are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops
to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance
American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent
say that it should be increased.
That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other
countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe
relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend
or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The
mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S.
should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military
conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22
percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree.
Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America
safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure.
About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and
a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is
remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.
The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo.
U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want
to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been
seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad.
Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative
world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other
nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize
diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54
percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to
improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that
they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer.
In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something
with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant
establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.
Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy,
malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning
picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis ŕ vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent
it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim
that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring
hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence
as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally
irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the
false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country
in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a
transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing
Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the
UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian
agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international
body.
Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine
and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia,
Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to
hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.
First, Russia regained control of an important, strategic region.
Second, the sanctions and the countersanctions allowed Russia to concentrate on import replacement,
building up the domestic economy. This was especially impressive in agriculture, and Russia now earns
more export revenue from foodstuffs than from weapons.
Third, the severing of economic ties with the Ukraine allowed Russia to eliminate a major economic
competitor.
Fourth, over a million Ukrainians decided to move to Russia, either temporarily or permanently,
giving Russia a major demographic boost and giving it access to a pool of Russian-speaking skilled
labor. (Most Ukrainians are barely distinguishable from the general Russian population.)
Fifth, whereas before the Ukraine was in a position to extort concessions from Russia by playing
games with the natural gas pipelines that lead from Russia to the European Union, now Russia's hands
have been untied, resulting in new pipeline deals with Turkey and Germany.
In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an
unsavory, embarrassing dependent.
Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac.
(Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between
the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an
array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups,
making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims
that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded
everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to
play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition"
from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample
scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated
them.
There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian
threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence
existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically
irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had,
turning it into a sad joke.
But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the
election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt
Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy
her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly
president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened
negotiating position.
As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States
is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama
grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution
was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of
Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.
"... That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation. ..."
"... What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals? ..."
"... Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power. ..."
"... The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt. ..."
"... At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s. ..."
"... Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality. ..."
Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture
was the single most important . In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread
between the 1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac – were recast in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted
in the early 1980s; and falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in
the 1980s and 1990s. More revolutionary was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s,
driven by rise of private label securitisation backed by credit default obligations (CDOs)
and swaps. The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable
throughout the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This
permitted derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that
they could be sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change
was the deregulation of banks and investment banks . Similar measures to lower required capital
on investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in
the political context of pressure to extend credit to poor.
That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted
power via debt creation.
What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological
insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships
among individuals?
Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central
Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in
'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power.
After Brexit, Trump, and the emerging upheaval in the EU, it's no longer enough to just 'build
better economic models'.
The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until
someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different
kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt.
At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally
- when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated
from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s.
Allowing anyone to charge interest that is usurious is the modern equivalent of turning a blind
eye to slavery.
By enabling outrageous interest, any government hands their hard working taxpayers over to
what is essentially unending servitude.
This destroys the political power of any government that engages in such blind stupidity.
Frankly, I'm astonished that it has taken so long for taxpayers to show signs of outrage and
revolt.
I think you have come up with a good insight – I very much agree its about power and not money.
Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion
in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality.
And one other thing I would point out – it doesn't take usurious interest rates. If squillionaires
have access to unlimited, essentially cost free money in which the distributors of money are guaranteed
a profit, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST, while the debts on non-squillionaires are collected
with fees, penalties, and to the last dime, than it doesn't matter if interest rates are essentially
zero.
Who gets bailed out is not due to logic or accounting that says that the banks' losses have
to be made whole, but not home owners – that is an ideology called economics .
Looks like the US elite now is afraid that color revolution methods developed for overthrowing
government in xUSSR area and Arab countries might come home to roost. and with neoliebral
ideology discredited those worries are not completely unfounded: the USA population now is
susceptible to anti-neoliberal (which means like in the USSR simultaneously
anti-establishment) propaganda much like people of the USSR since 1960th were susceptible to
Anti-communist propaganda. they listened to BBC and Voice of America for the same reason people now
read and watch RT: the USA MSM became a bunch of propagandists that fake reality, the real producers
of "fake news". All major news sources in the USA are now yellow.
But while the passage of the NDAA - and the funding of the US military - was hardly a
surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense
Authortization Act.
Recall that as
we reported in early June
,
"a bill to implement the U.S.' very own
de
facto
Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress
. As with
any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign
Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom
and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by
Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a "whole-government approach
without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and
manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability."
Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when
introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to
Cold War-era government propaganda battles.
"These countries spend vast sums of
money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding
of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and
populations," Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small
amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news
organization, RT.
"Surprisingly," Portman continued, "there is currently no single U.S. governmental
agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and
synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation."
Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on
such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary
of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to "establish a Center for
Information Analysis and Response," which will pinpoint sources of disinformation,
analyze data, and - in true dystopic manner - 'develop and disseminate' "
fact-based
narratives
" to counter effrontery propaganda.
In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was
already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label
"fake news."
* * *
Fast forward to
December 8,
when the "
Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act
"
passed in the Senate,
quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.
And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening,
the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act
is now law.
* * *
Here is the
full statement
issued by the
generously funded
Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the singing into law of a bill
that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for
future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any
one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda"
and is shut down by the government.
Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies
Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their
Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act –
legislation designed to
help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other
nations
–
has been signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was
introduced
by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the
United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by
establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and
synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these
efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and
other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work.
This will better leverage existing expertise and empower our allies overseas to defend
themselves from foreign manipulation. It will also help foster a free and vibrant press
and civil society overseas, which is critical to ensuring our allies have access to
truthful information and inoculating people against foreign propaganda campaigns.
"Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and
disinformation against us and our allies, and so far the U.S. government has been asleep
at the wheel," Portman said. "But today, the United States has taken a critical step
towards confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and
disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas.
With
this bill now law, we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States
will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on. I am
confident that, with the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda
used against us, our allies, and our interests will fail."
"
The use of propaganda to undermine democracy has hit a
new low.
But now we are finally in a position to confront this threat head on
and get out the truth. By building up independent, objective journalism in places like
eastern Europe, we can start to fight back by exposing these fake narratives and
empowering local communities to protect themselves," said Murphy. "I'm proud that our
bill was signed into law, and I look forward to working with Senator Portman to make
sure these tools and new resources are effectively used to get out the truth."
NOTE:
The bipartisan
Countering
Disinformation and Propaganda Act
is organized around two main priorities to help
achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation
from our enemies:
The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for
countering THE foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages against us and our
allies by our enemies
. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and
mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China
as well as non-state actors. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with
the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant
agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government
initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies
and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to
create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation
establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts
to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media
organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in
identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation
techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center's role by integrating
capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the
strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private
sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
* * *
And so, with the
likes of WaPo having already primed the general public
to equate "Russian
Propaganda" with "fake news" (despite admitting
after the fact their own report was essentially "fake
"), while the US media has
indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with
the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also
"fake news" and thus falls under the "Russian propaganda" umbrella, the scene is now set
for the US government to
legally
crack down on every media outlet that the
government deems to be "foreign propaganda."
Just like that, the US
Ministry of Truth
is officially born.
The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for
those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine
Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer
U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the
new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a
clean break from the past.
In a letter to
President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United
States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues
to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply,"
the group claims
,
"Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern
European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously
upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and
its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."
On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's
stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all
intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the
United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.
But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time
a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be
the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of
Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an
agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through
mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border
control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the
point of irrelevance.
It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's
military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely
have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples'
republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an
extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.
Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of
international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to
recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than
Washington's.
There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful
decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was
itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian
border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial
sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia
bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.
Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's
behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why
further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised.
In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars
in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all,
and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its
immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.
Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized
$750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and
security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million
earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next
administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial
encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.
What the next administration needs to ask itself,
however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely
to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government.
Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western
democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western
government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in
Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't
forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of
millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated
its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in
equal terms.
The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved,
in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent
implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not
fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015.
Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as
getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy
establishment since the end of the Cold War.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that
the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would
respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path,"
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.
As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and
companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.
"We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more
"damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and
the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
" Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one
another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.
Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin
would seek re-election in 2018."
"Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking
about elections," Peskov said.
Then again, the sanctions may soon be history.
According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the
showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in
a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic
growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and
0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.
"It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the
direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing
costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the
macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing
trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."
Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he
may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While
dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's
favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials
supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national
security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.
An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's
own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent
of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next
12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.
"If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states
to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist
at IHS Markit in Washington.
And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere
incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly
competent at being incompetent?
Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.
Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve
the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.
A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power
(and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring
in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian
than it was before the vote to secede.
All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks)
will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example
is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed
into Western countries.
Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the
Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman -
understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror
than any other ethnicity in the USSR.
Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians
should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western
countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.
The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated
in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....
FACT:
"Folke Bernadotte ,
Count of Wisborg
( Swedish : Greve
af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish
diplomat and nobleman. During
World War II he negotiated
the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German
concentration camps
including 450 Danish Jews from the
Theresienstadt camp.
They were released on 14 April 1945. [1]
[2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from
Heinrich Himmler
, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the
United
Nations Security Council mediator in the
Arab–Israeli conflict
of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in
Jerusalem in 1948 by the
militant Zionist group
Lehi while pursuing
his official duties. Upon his death,
Ralph Bunche took up
his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated,
at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."
Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!
It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real
estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.
Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however
you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me
every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his
inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course
WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money
earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I
would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go
to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel
covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you
share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential
mess.
The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give
it up.
If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might
scale down a tad.
They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the
princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.
Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes
us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as
current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal
which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.
"The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for
Israel
over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the
agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,
When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee
can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour
it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow
the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.
America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood
them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will
vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll
save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.
I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine
with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just
by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This
bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels
neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.
I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries.
I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to
those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse
to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell
out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent
our interests at all.
My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia,
which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface
while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.
I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.
Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.
Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into
the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican
infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.
Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea?
I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe
with NJ.
I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed
a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead
buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down
there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through
the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the
Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops
lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded
were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.
One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.
It's not regulation per se is deficient, it is regulation under neoliberal regime, were government
is captured by financial oligarchy ;-). But that understanding is foreign to WSJ with its neoliberal
agenda :-(.
Notable quotes:
"... Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler. ..."
"... The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts. ..."
"... On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight. ..."
"... The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government? ..."
"... "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit." ..."
"... Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. ..."
"... And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level. ..."
Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler.
The financial scandal du jour involves leaked audio recordings that purport to show that
regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were soft on
Goldman Sachs . Say it ain't so.
... ... ...
The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the
New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful
termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman
had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years,
though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions
on employees trading for their own accounts.
The New York Fed won against Ms. Segarra in district court, though the case is on appeal. The
regulator also notes that Ms. Segarra "demanded $7 million to settle her complaint." And last week
New York Fed President
William Dudley said,
"We are going to keep striving to improve, but I don't think anyone should question our motives or
what we are trying to accomplish."
On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of
their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point
Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the
words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept
Goldman's explanations without a fight.
The sleuths at the ProPublica website, working with a crack team of investigators from public
radio, also seem to think they have another smoking gun in one of Ms. Segarra's conversations that
was not recorded but was confirmed by another regulator. Ms. Seest means. For example, a company
offering securities is exempt from some registration requirements if it is only selling to accredited
investors, such as people with more than $1 million in net worth, excluding the value of primary
residences.
The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial
crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency
resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government?
***
Enter George Stigler, who published his famous essay "The Theory of Economic Regulation" in the
spring 1971 issue of the Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. The University of Chicago
economist reported empirical data from various markets and concluded that "as a rule, regulation
is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."
Stigler knew he was fighting an uphill battle trying to persuade his fellow academics. "The idealistic
view of public regulation is deeply imbedded in professional economic thought," he wrote. But thanks
to Stigler, who would go on to win a Nobel prize, many economists have studied the operation and
effects of regulation and found similar results.
A classic example was the New York Fed's decision to let Citigroup stash $1.2 trillion
of assets-including more than $600 billion of mortgage-related securities-in off-balance-sheet vehicles
before the financial crisis. That's when Tim Geithner ran the New York Fed and Jack Lew was at Citigroup.
Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response
is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats.
This means repealing most of Dodd-Frank and the so-called Basel rules and replacing them with a simple
requirement for more bank capital-an equity-to-asset ratio of perhaps 15%. It means bringing back
bankruptcy for giant firms instead of resolution at the discretion of political appointees. And
it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's
debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level.
"... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
"... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
"... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
"... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
"... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
"... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
"... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
"... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in
the Deep State.
The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That
assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a
space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and
a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by
the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of
the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery,
repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.
Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual
rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards
those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control
of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda.
Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of
Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven,
the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also
co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.
Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and
manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason
for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.
The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep
State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy
at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced
by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to
handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power
of government.
With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the
intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical
flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance,
repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world
conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR,
they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic
nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there
are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy
the US or the entire planet.
There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared
far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche
to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified
as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military
was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have
objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's
prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).
What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State
came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not
have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception.
The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information
over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the
antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately,
countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.
The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the
technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.
Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq?
Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran,
and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both
Europe and the US?
Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the
US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government
bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector
and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in
more debt?
How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped
the US economy?
The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its
failures.
Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the
alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building
that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent
protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations,
"fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those
trapped inside.
Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless
and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism,
the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump
represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal
are minimal and the dangers obvious.
The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify
the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's
victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been
hard-won wisdom.
"War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck
Or
"War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America
Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty
Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM
The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into
believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.
Voila!
TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM
Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of
Tonkin! Never forget.
Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM
"In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State
carte blanche..."
What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.
StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.
WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM
Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!
BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM
Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked
by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.
Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's
nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive
the conflict in ways that serve their interests.
Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.
With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...
(Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government
forces ...". It
was altered after
I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)
Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which,
after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
In a recent interview Kerry
admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his
agreement with Russia over Syria:
More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely
hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."
Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by
intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.
The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda
in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon
all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained,
supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal
was modified and finally ready to be implemented.
The Pentagon still
did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:
The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in
Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton
B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly
target terrorist groups.
Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference
call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility
in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort
after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
...
"I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air
Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to
say that we're going to jump right into it."
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He
would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied
Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During
37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many
more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly
after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the
100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom
attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the
envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.
During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the
designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could
not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:
By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained
that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already
taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.
Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to
allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov
deal
was off :
On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were
high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes,
two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was
to begin.
"I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after
abruptly leaving the meeting.
The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily
redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.
The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers
at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible
for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:
misled the Russians about where the US intended to strike so Russia could not warn that
it was targeting Syrian troops
ignored information and intelligence analysis warning that the positions to be struck were
Syrian government rather than Islamic State
shifted abruptly from a deliberate targeting process to an immediate strike in violation
of normal Air Force procedures
The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge
the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted
in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.
Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without
giving any public reason,
pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.
With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:
enabled ISIS to win the siege in Deir Ezzor where 100,000+ civilians and soldiers are under
threat of being brutally killed
cleared the grounds for the establishment of an ISIS ruled "Salafist principality" in east-Syria
deceived a European NATO ally and lost its active cooperation over Syria and Iraq
ruined Kerry's deal with Russia about a coordinated fight against UN designated terrorists
in Syria
kicked the U.S. out of further international negotiations about Syria
It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen.
Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief
had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.
Emptywheel
notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the
President's decisions:
[I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential]
Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust
that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly
and directly.
though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions:
It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama
is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to
all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere
on display for everyone to see.
https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt
to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American
David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo.
SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be
any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia
and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
"Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate
with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.
The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose
to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability
to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.
Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual
Hawaii vacation, his last as president.
"Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because
we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful,
methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know,
but not everybody will."
On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by
droning.
This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that
the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political
objectives.
I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split
in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is
a real possibility.
the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this
fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian?
both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia
and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership
command? doesn't look like it..
The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?
Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous
their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings
of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit
by trying to establish embassies.
My, my!
We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group
of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution).
But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!
No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.
Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!
So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the
Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least
this is what they say in public.
I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense
strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile
one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too.
Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.
All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over
intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously
in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape
and continue the fight.
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced
the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra
leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.
The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them.
If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate
evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration
is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.
The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out
of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate
them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the
war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military
means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.
MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking
for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there
will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change,
holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels.
God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.
If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and,
as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of
Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's
victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically)
in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.
One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the
deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.
I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma
Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook,
Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.
Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador
Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.
The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then
blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective
investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother
trying to argue with her.
I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards
his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying
the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.
While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little
hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.
Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks
to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.
Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes
attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:
"Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims
she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that
has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that
was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local
run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales
positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the
OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing
in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences
in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when
it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."
Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for
some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone
camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck
attacks???
Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special
talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.
I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video.
Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone
these days.
I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.
Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is
coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.
The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference.
It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying
the CIC, what a message to the world!
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken.
He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon.
He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.
Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup
against the POTUS.
I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter
has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying
gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.
@17 danny801
Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he
was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.
@20 lysias
i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.
@22 blues
agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we
get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA
todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...
"QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary
Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians
over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was
that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?
MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged
what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and
candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the
way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal
agency has a different view --
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the
process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.
According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish
Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.
The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an
Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.
For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab;
however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.
Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight
on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was
reported dead after being brutally tortured.
The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.
The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for
allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).
... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey,
and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism
at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that
that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?
We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white
slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th,
18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further
erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies.
https://mycommonsenseparty.com
"The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off
1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile
with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal
was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction
of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete
a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so
rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg
up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation
for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near
the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left
the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline
line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the
US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap
stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced
a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early
December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was
finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring
any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018
Recession."
Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel
Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!
I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of
its diplomacy.
Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions
This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to
say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this
bungled deal just a delaying action?
Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional
chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really
don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt
to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?
It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They
involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state
parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed
official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry.
When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have
government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times
that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers
and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.
That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union,
which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans
that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in
Moscow.
A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood
the United States.
There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North
Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's
neck from only 90 miles away.
And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was
clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including
inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including
leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.
Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets,
influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security
branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned
monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being
kept safe from the communists.
Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded
to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure,
which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic
processes of the American people.
One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At
war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous
Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence
and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy
announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.
What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army
of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and
the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could
they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national
security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American
people?
Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued.
The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up.
The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big
official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare
state parasites continued soaring.
Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly
happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet
Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep
state.
Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations,
for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.
U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had
served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against
Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S.
Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the
communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American
people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued
their upward soar.
Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the
Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official
enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists
and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and
force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for
the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.
The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary
of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials
know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at
the same time.
That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and,
implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why
the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO
- to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state
is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of
interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all
is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep
Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets
to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations
with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official
enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment
and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.
"... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
"... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
"... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form
of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).
Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor
is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say
in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial
oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")
In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan,
or even earlier with Carter.
And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population
this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite
was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.
But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably
is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his
deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable
-- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.
So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama)
toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version
of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites
) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism
and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.
After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead
dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How
soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into
another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism
in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in
1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.
And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta,
which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national
security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed
as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.
The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration
of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies.
As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already
started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost
control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain
the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process
(which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html)
.
You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly
the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might
be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.
As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still
are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression
is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging
the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.
We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders,
for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders
for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to
endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!
Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:
Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any
type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be
thrown in jail.
Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting
allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other
support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .
A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered
into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.'
The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'.
This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .
We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .
I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being
used to support terrorists.
Speaking on
CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in
the Middle East:
The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of
support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with
Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:
We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar
...
Speaking
on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist,
regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with
that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main
reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:
SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind
of have the same position on Syria?
GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change
wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years
since I have been in Congress. And it's one...
SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?
GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary
Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that
we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.
This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies
and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one
global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass
a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his
campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.
"... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
"... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power
structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate
their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation
is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still
doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military
coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant
nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way
it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.
In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world
and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what
it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet."
The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign,
from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps
imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the
evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia
in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant!
Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because,
you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans
act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.
The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition.
The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the
West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation,
was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously
demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian
response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the
US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just
recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo
of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are
hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's
face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says:
"Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again."
Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."
What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly
how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans
to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup
in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks
said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts
of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons
for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade
The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated.
If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then
the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no
longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting
madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers
signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order
to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking.
Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent
diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during
the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for
the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power
of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.
But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body
politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In
spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this
one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer,
the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has
holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading
is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins
the whole ambiance!
The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of
this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate
source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting
for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public
figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful
idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for
them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the
Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young
people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs
and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white
people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.
It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the
power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new
paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding
"nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary
changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.
NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT
Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's
reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump
phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to
abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the
"dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're
abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.
The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in
their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea
that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all
mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate
water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their
station in life.
Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams
of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time
might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled
hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis
before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who
aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many
inner devils. We won't be missed.
Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT
A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have
happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we
truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the
response... NYET!
Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT
Nice...
Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)
Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT
I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to
show their unity to the cause.
Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT
I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts
with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful
that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on
fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the
coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.
Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT
Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"
Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT
BRILLIANT!!!
Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT
d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
Excellent.
There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American
hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local
linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you
meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)
Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT
This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary
that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere
noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have
any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"
Mark said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT
At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.
Roger said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT
I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief
from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise.
Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned
the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out
later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be
vigilant always.
Bruno said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT
Loved.
And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.
Unknown said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT
"Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"
Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four
letter word".
What a tag team!
Marty said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT
I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides
themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion,
the are being laughed at, even by the American people.
I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough
to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this
would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and
to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.
Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major
base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.
This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were
counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.
Roger said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT
Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the
contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because
there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to
do this."
You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was
destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer
equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America
with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov
asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't
fathom it.
But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own
interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street
level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in
ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.
For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it
always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly
can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right
to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more
to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United
States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters
that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his
own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an
Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on
American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or
"Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and
"Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.
Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more
apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places
there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the
interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the
will nor the reach to make it otherwise.
Happy Unicorn said...
Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the
locals."
Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking
about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I
suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody
else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is
always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the
utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No,
because we hate you."
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT
flops said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT
In good wronglish:
There's America, Americans, USA.
And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name
given to our land by the older people.
Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language
as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave
attacking our countries.
We, the united states of...? What?
"Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!
Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real
continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay
colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That'
what we are.
Roger said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT
HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.
What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an
entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate
studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as
old under the sun as "group-think".
The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs,
on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of
the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.
I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established
consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that
hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that
border-less trade ruined heartland America.
You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the
best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown
that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.
Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon
line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an
artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well,
there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and
treasuries are emptied.
And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms.
Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin',
gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a
con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and
now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.
Robert T. said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT
It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its
levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the
Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.
A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a
superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying
that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's
more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even
better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been
rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other
parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably,
begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then
start to follow Russia's footsteps?
Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT
Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the
meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.
Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!
I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the
US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided
that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from
any and all levity and mirth.
You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for
them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck
with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.
There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking
of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way,
because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder.
This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor,
I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for
schizophrenia first?
And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of
something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior
is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later
the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.
Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle
ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose
fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch
them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and
to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.
My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US
to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's
face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on
the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority
Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in
an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a
tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and
wish to become part of Russia again.
So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted,
turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents,
it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon,
whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive
of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression
that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians,
kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they
downloaded from their friends on Facebook.
From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the
Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about
"Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence
of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.
This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced,
let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face
value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks
but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks
occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order
to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima
facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain?
Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.
But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although
with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it
onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot
from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You
hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the
servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating
evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary
afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .
The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is
a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean
goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into
doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes
Sir, Tovarishch Putin!
Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation,
depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic
sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing
presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian
oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain
future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and
on But who can stop them?
And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here
we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave
your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course
you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody
could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond
lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting
the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.
Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over
half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower
to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in
New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through
quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of
your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow
hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.
The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending
an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched
over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south
of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.
Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational
elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern
agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture
of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is
thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they
are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the
men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays,
and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if
not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.
And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them
all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed,
under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the
audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and
the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops
Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance,
sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub
it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?
Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now?
Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the
"Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just
one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison,
let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite,
and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.
1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique
of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now
the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other
oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.
2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall.
And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements.
For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly
issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.
3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other
than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple
Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential
election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate
ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.
4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this
day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the
east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased
the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest,
possibly escalating into a civil war.
The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of
anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's
left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!
There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking"
or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally
ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their
opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically
influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging
it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward
a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved
hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going
on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals,
because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead
try to coax them into learning to control it.
"... Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy. ..."
"... Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them. ..."
"... "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference. ..."
While the UN condemns Syrian and Russian "atrocities" in the battle over East Aleppo, which as
noted previously was a key victory for the Assad regime in the past week, one which will end
the stalemate and sway the balance of power in the ongoing war between regime forces and US-coalition
armed rebels, little attention had been paid to the subversive tactics employed by such "moderate
rebels" as the al Qaeda linked al-Nusra front.
That may change after five buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held
villages in Syria's Idlib province were attacked and burned by rebels.
PHOTOS: Reports coming in that an "unknown rebel group" has attacked buses going to evacuate
civilians from Kafraya and Fuah - @Ald_Aba
pic.twitter.com/7xMPhumeu5
Five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to militant-held villages
after an evacuation deal was struck between the Syrian government and rebels, Syrian state television
has reported. According to Reuters, the deal was reached earlier on Sunday, citing al-Ikhbariya TV
news. It will see the remaining militants and their families evacuated from east Aleppo in return
for the evacuation of people in militant-held villages in Idlib province, al-Foua and Kafraya.
Syrian state television has reported that five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists"
while en route to al-Foua and Kefraya. However, most of them, as well as Red Crescent vehicles, reached
the entrance to the villages, the report said.
Syrian state news agency SANA reported earlier that evacuation buses had entered the last militant-held
district of eastern Aleppo, Ramousah, under the supervision of the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Cross. State television showed live footage of buses and
a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah .
Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage.
As
BBC adds, the convoy was traveling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government
forces have been demanding that people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for
the evacuation of east Aleppo to restart, with thousands of people waiting to leave in desperate
conditions, reports say.
The initial plan to evacuate eastern Aleppo collapsed on Friday, leaving civilians stranded at
various points along the route out without access to food or shelter.
PHOTOS: Other buses have however arrived in Kafraya and Fuah -
@sayed_ridha
Despite delays caused by disagreements over the new evacuation plan, convoys were said to be traveling
to both eastern Aleppo and the government-held villages in Idlib province on Sunday. However, UK-based
monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said six buses were attacked and torched
on the way to Foah and Kefraya.
Jaish Fateh militants have set fire to several buses that were going towards Fuah-Kafraya in
Idlib countryside pic.twitter.com/wud4CNQp1u
It had reported earlier that the "moderate rebel" group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as
the Nusra Front, was preventing buses entering the villages.
As a reminder, earlier in the year, Jabhat Al-Nusra, rebranded itself Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, a
cosmetic change which was apparently sufficient to convince the US government to brand them "moderates"
and send them arms and equipment, equipment which today may have been used against innocent Syrian
citizens.
Syrian state media said "armed terrorists" attacked five buses, burned and destroyed them.
More pics of the buses which were burned by militants near Sarmin south of Binnish, Idlib
pic.twitter.com/by7g7wf5tP
Rebel groups have not yet commented on the attack. Subsequent to the attack, it was reported that
more buses have been sent to Fuah-Kafraya to replace those that were burnt, although it was unclear
if the "rebels" would allow them passage.
Meanwhile, later on Sunday, the United Nations Security Council is set to vote on a French-drafted
resolution aimed at ensuring that UN officials can monitor the evacuations from Aleppo and the safety
of the remaining civilians. Reuters reported that those evacuated on Thursday and Friday morning
had been taken to rebel-held districts in the countryside west of Aleppo.
As RT notes
, a draft of the resolution "emphasizes that the evacuations of civilians must be voluntary and
to final destinations of their choice, and protection must be provided to all civilians who choose
or who have been forced to be evacuated and those who opt to remain in their homes."
It was not immediately clear how Russia will vote. "If it is a sensible initiative and we see
it on paper, why not entertain this initiative?" Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said
on Friday.
i HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION: Didn't the US back the rebels and how deep is the US ( under the Pervert
in the WH ) involved and is the US (CIA) responsible?
JUST MAKES ME SICK ... AS THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE SAID:
"I TREMBLE FOR MY NATION WHEN I KNOW THAT GOD IS JUST AND HIS JUSTICE CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER."
While the rebels may well be connected to terrorist group, this incident does sound odd.
"State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent
flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah. Several large white cars marked with Red
Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage."
No rebel approached or attacked the state television crew? Hidden camera? Invisibility cloak?
"Moderate" Rebels. Your tax dollars at work. I hope Trump gets rid of all of the sick fucks in
our government who are behind all of this shit in the Middle East.
Meh, empires rise and fall...the Romans at Palmyra, more recently the Ottomans, "we" really don't
have a dog in the fight, from a western perspective, it was a French Mandate after the Ottomans
crashed & burned so maybe Hollande should nuke it...lol...joking of course.
Make no mistake, to me Assad Jr is the same as his daddy before him but its not our fight,
the imposed borders mean nothing to the people who actually live there, the lines are just lines
on a map and bunch of sand & rock isn't worth a war with Russia over, no matter what the west
might think of an Assad (and my opinion is clear on him) there was some structure (or order)...for
better or worse.
No one ever said "order & structure" is always angelic, its just order & structure, as opposed
to the lack of and they know that more than anyone ;-)
Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were
full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to
drive them.
"Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey
Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people
, which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them
why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing,
not burning. Big difference.
There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its
"deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are
truly terrified.
The home front
One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick
on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White
House: they have
organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money)
encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the
elections ("not my President")
tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for
Hillary or not vote at all
tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral
College and
they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that
the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election
outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen
it in favor of Trump.
That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary
attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She
specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome
would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and
now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just
that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear
path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war.
Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support
the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit
that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a
Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA"
issue.
Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this
begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that
they can succeed or what their true objective is.
My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always
happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And
again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological
make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so
each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically
double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of
hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as
much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I
would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.
What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently
long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of
Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then
Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received
the order of "
Friend of Russia
" from the hands of Vladimir Putin
himself!
Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would
be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally
deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.
I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept
the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to
the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded
everybody that "
these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction
". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that
as soon as Trump take control
heads will roll at the CIA .
[Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about
some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when
does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I
thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does
the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy
observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US
politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this
openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but,
frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of
course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are
two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very
much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].
One the external front
On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by
Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made
all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities
while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article
about
how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica .
Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are
similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by
government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war
to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for
itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the
inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.
ORDER IT NOW
The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign
forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz,
etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in
breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and
first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short
lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says
that
Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the
reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and
Russians.
It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra
was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies
(at least
once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore
conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra
in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?
Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has
always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a
relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo,
making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its
population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in
the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now
that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major
engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always
possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert
town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very
much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some
Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that
they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).
The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda
effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never
mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US"
at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert
city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the
US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead
coalition looks strong in Aleppo.
Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA:
not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but
they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond
its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but
after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be
an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once
Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also
with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his
promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to
antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of
defeating Daesh in Iraq.
Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing
of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian
victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the
color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier
Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat
humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the
USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed,
while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian
operations in Syria.
Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to
obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that
the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the
Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.
The countdown to January 20
th
It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax
of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the
inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject
failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in
history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for
Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US
and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.
In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they
attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at
preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20
th
,
2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented
people could come up with.
As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex
Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the
Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel
Lobby gang by choosing
a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US
ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear
to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat
Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a
real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.
Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend
Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening
Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out
there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.
And yet, I still have a small hope.
My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate
and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts
at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of "
de-neoconization
"
of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of "
making
America great again
". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough
from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he
still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as
long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in
power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or
minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same
road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a
non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the
Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama
Administration once McCain was defeated
"... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
"... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
"... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
"... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
"... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
"... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
"... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election
by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p",
which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.
[Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the
comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come
across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never
really expressed it before.
Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They
intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content
can just be handed over to the fuzz.
I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just
had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my
not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.
I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone
number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide
even more security.
I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach
of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password -
did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which
requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached
twice from two separate servers.
As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm
not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from
many sources I have no control over.
So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more
secure server?
Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because
we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.
Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out
of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the
fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's
almost as tall as a short flea.
With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting
the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom
mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have
the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?
Why is a lameduck
messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash?
Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake
the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.
I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference
and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so
they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.
He did
respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but
funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really
trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since
she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay
to play and her donors.
The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then
how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind
the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get
into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is
the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then
nothing happened.
Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in
for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands
the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going
"huh, that's it?!?!")
I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either
have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially
since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America
who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some
they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to
laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.
"... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
"... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
"... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions
of her own country.
"The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as
if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember
the track record of your country."
"I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's
meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result
of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.
"I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis,
which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.
Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:
"Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила
свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.
Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States,
who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.
[You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]
Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west
has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time,
but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate
because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some
sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a
professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives,
sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered
by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies
of the "Exceptional Nation"?
Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains
consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary
destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by
those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her
own country?
Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples
of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate
perpetrators were not western actors.
Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was
racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how
much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been
so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging
rights among the Washington social set.
The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But
I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them,
and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say
hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:
===
John Bolton
"Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"
Hillary Clinton
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in
the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam
Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
===
John Bolton
"Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military
target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right
there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."
Hillary Clinton
"We came, we saw, he died!"
===
John Bolton
"If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria...
that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."
Hillary Clinton
"The world will not waver, Assad must go"
===
John Bolton
"To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
"The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."
Hillary Clinton
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate
them."
===
John Bolton
"Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented
since the Cold War"
Hillary Clinton
"[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated
and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake
here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria.
... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."
===
John Bolton
"The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"
Hillary Clinton
"ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost,
aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."
The Nuremberg Court Trials rulings only apply to 'them' not 'US'
Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi woman, claims that former President George W. Bush and other government
officials committed the crime of aggression when they launched the Iraq War, an international
war crime that was banned at the Nuremberg Trials.
Saleh filed her lawsuit in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court. The court ruled in December
2014 that the defendants in the lawsuit - George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz - were immune from civil proceedings based on the Westfall
Act, a federal law which immunizes government officials from lawsuits for conduct taken within
the lawful scope of their authority. Saleh appealed the decision in June 2015.
The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue an order with respect to Saleh's appeal.
Nuremberg trial also prosecuted Judges unt Doctors.
"... ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. ..."
From The Syrian Arab Army's "more official than any
other"
Facebook
page:
"...the city of Palmyra after the Syrian Arab Army units managed to regroup
and counterattack; the counter attack was aimed to prevent ISIS from entering the city
before the majority if not all civilians, what needs to be evacuated is evacuated.
In the morning, an organized withdrawal order was given to the troops, even after
the bulk of ISIS attack was repelled.
As we mentioned the night ended with ISIS pushed over 7km form the city itself;
and as we mentioned yesterday don't take any news as definitive.
Yesterday, reinforcement from the Syrian Arab Army were sent led by one of the
greatest SAA Generals, and everything changed afterwards.
As for now, the Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra; we don't know the second
step yet and we will update the page when we have information that we can share.
In its latest post some 45 minutes ago, the page author explains: "...the Syrian
command have to make hard choices to minimize SAA loses over any area on the map;
because the control map can be changed either with huge casualties or with minimal
casualties, but those who are lost cannot be revived."
It's a familiar story. We see armies advance and withdraw, advance and withdraw. What
matters is how many civilians die or can be protected and how many soldiers are left,
and to which side, which then rules the ground. Russian and Syrian gunships are
inflicting massive damage on these terrorists. Civilians are being evacuated from the
battle zones. At this moment SAA either controls the city or will control the city. But
SAA controls the battle.
ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians
in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there
is a split between the CIA and the army. Good luck to trump and his friends. He is not someone
I would normally support but it does appear that he is an outsider to both the Republicans and
Democrats and may indeed be intent on draining the swamp. A very difficult road ahead as the corruption
amongst the powerful in the USA is widespread. Karma is the word that comes to mind if one looks
at what the USA has done to other countries around the world.
Robert McMaster@66 Tillerson's nomination could face intense scrutiny in the Senate, considering
his years of work in Russia and the Middle East on behalf of the multinational petroleum company.
Already, two leading Republican hawks, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.),
have voiced concerns about Tillerson's serving as the nation's top diplomat because of his ties
to Putin.
I can hear McCains first question "Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party.
"Iran's total crude oil and condensates sales likely reached around
2.8 million barrels per day in September, two sources with knowledge
of the matter said, nearly matching a 2011 peak in shipments before
sanctions were imposed on the OPEC producer.
Iran sold 600,000 bpd
of condensates for September, including about 100,000 bpd shipped from
storage, to meet robust demand in Asia, the two sources said.
September crude exports increased slightly from the previous month to
about 2.2 million bpd, they said."
"Iran's condensate production has exceeded 610,000 b/d this year,
with 561,000 b/d of this - or around 90% - coming from the 16
operating phases at the giant offshore South Pars gas field in the
Persian Gulf, Akbary said.
The latest additions to the project were phases 17, 18 and 19,
which came into operation this year, Akbary said.
In addition, eight new phases are currently being installed at the
field. Phases 20 and 21 will become operational in 2017, Akbary said,
while phases 13 and 22-24 are expected to begin in 2018. Iran hopes
the entire development will be completed in 2021.
By then, South Pars condensate production will exceed 1 million
b/d.
Smaller offshore fields under development could add another 50,000
b/d, with a further 55,000 b/d on top of this should additional
projects be approved.
Onshore fields could add a further 115,000 b/d, taking total capacity
to more than 1.2 million b/d.
Iran's domestic consumption currently stands at around 260,000 b/d,
leaving a surplus of more than 350,000 b/d this year. But consumption
is forecast to rise to more than 700,000 b/d by 2021 with the
completion of new condensate splitters, such as the 360,000 b/d
Persian Gulf Star.
as a result, Iran's condensate exports are expected to drop to
around 250,000 b/d in 2021."
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/dubai/major-investment-needed-to-avoid-output-fall-26601277
Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about
Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII.
They are adamantly anti-Russian.
Notable quotes:
"... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
"... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
"... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
"... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
"... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
"... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
"... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
"... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
"... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
"... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
"... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
"... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
"... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
"... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
"... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
"... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
"... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
"... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
"... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
"... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
"... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
"... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
"... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
"... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
"... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
"... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
"... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot.
As I have recently written
on my blog
, I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization
group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is
basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort
of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."
That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was
a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers
(quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you
condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis
and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).
Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions
of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government
that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to
that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's
Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the
nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.
As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there
are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.
Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not
speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them,
but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary
in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day),
and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving
the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs
or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.
Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of
the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems
to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.
The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if
only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives
will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden
of identity, of individual life.
My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot
being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment,
in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak;
both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure
of subjective evaluation).
I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).
No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost
out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming
the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism
or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn,
not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement.
Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then
fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.
Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered,
spent, and gunned them
And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM
simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment.
Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo
cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi
insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell
way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.
And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM
made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening
in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism
by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.
Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as
they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting"
external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes
two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example,
the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane
etc. element to the Syrian opposition.
Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and
eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern
half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than
in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is
interesting.
Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a
long and embattled history there.
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because
you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,
Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for
social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American
Exceptionalism.
And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing
for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative
power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.
Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents
a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion
of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites
tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better
than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.
This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere
does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting
words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies
names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker
of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls
it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad
faith commenting.
The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi
leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played
a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no
equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where
does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan
had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and
often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent
confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.
Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something
else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders
of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!"
There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute
descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration
with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so
fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away.
There is no "but" and no excuse, period.
"Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure
to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using
false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here,
and maybe you'll be taken seriously.
My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak
wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over,
and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?
I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking
points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking
points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing
about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin,
right?
Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than
he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and
rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment
was a pre-masticated one-and-done.
I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this
country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side
won WWII.
I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear
the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and
dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened
in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places,
but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing
into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't
US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.
The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked
by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and
darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the
appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But
Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt
SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"
Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured
corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including
in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting
and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels.
But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites
have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and
the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians
is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies"
and "free" media.
Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds
with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call
it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say
that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright?
I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of
neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because
it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the
lives of the natives. It does not.
"The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of
Yats and Poroschenko "
That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand
what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential
lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the
Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage
and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for
those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are
those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying
to outrun Roscoe.
All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of
virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to
the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to
different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.
If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current
US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in
other countries.
I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they
ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.
Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously
hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.
"Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers
than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!
Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory
of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over
The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi
symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.
The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign
has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs
in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is
becoming more visible each day.
Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!
Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian
school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard
that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that
can 180 mid-flight?
"Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence
of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well
documented)."
You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign
Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed
molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right
after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong
evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021
And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution"
was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei
Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly,
says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that
lead to the extinction of the white man."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
- Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from
Poroshenko.
I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself.
Glory to the heroes indeed.
As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally
many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that
the local Nazis spout.
That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed
in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were
willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent
military units.
Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.
What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but
all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland
and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.
To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi
variety'.
Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy
to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as
those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus-
undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling
concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express
one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.
(Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no
good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now
has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural
nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses"
is part of the problem.)
WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the
existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know,
there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much
of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained
in Poland, US, and Canada).
Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991
has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research
on J. Timoshenko).
Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U.
politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera
– but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least
in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.
There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members
on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of
the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections.
The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.
(2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify
who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times –
I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended
recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia).
Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any
partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will
not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.
(3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack,
with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders
of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was
gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).
Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far
worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base
of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any
time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought
starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.
Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative
system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided
billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment –
they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their
hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points
I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party
change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will
just laugh at you.
Hahahahahaha!
What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating
a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded
Voice of America and is
a regular with Ukraine's
"StopFake.org"
which is
funded
by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other
words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.
Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to
America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American
democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news
is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion
they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already,
which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.
Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations,
but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far
worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries
Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer
to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana
Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started
out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to
the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.
What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center.
That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out
as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.
Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated
to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke
never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics
to the public.
This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton
didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!
Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more
disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her
dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?),
it doesn't look good.
Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?
I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where
s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions,"
new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was
shut down really because there was too much competition.)
Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")
Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more
disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption
And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the
American media before Trump moves in for the kill.
seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater
exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and
inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public
versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort
of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign
no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political
mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.
It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory
but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan
supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including
Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining
for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just
a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.
Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues.
I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream
lies about Russia and Ukraine.
No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable,
that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy,
that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.
Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the
link in yesterday's Water Cooler.
Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally
sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.
Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon"
sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction
is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change
is the USA."
Notable quotes:
"... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
"... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
"... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
"... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
"... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
"... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
"... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
"... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
"... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
"... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
"... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
"... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
"... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
"... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
"... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
"... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
"... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
"... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
"... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
"... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
"... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
"... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
"... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
"... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
"... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
"... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
"... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
"... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
"... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
"... 'CIA Team B' ..."
"... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
"... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
"... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
"... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
"... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear
something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.
So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of
its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false
narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple
brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds"
can be herded.
Six million dead is a good example of this technique.
Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast
- that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.
Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan
of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who
may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.
Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.
My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'.
When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.
In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting
our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.
Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics
used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.
chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM
I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site
and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now
calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".
Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle
hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian
people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.
dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them
that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really
want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again
I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites
American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM
not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing
i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another
of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on
this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more
successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a
two-fer for the globalist statists)
with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse
for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the
mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)
these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very
well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of
eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate
Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM
The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the
message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate
so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency
by far produces more positives for them than any other.
They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news.
It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.
sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM
"I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people
really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."
Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected
to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.
kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert
and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?
Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
"Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."
And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:
Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs
Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc
The working man's choices.....very limited.
Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM
"Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation.
Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert
Rubin. "
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM
If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.
There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when
the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the
Deep State. (take from that what you will)
We've seen the MO many times now;
Pearl Harbor
Iran in the 50's
Congo
Vietnam
Most of Latin America many times over
JFK
911
Sandy Hook
Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
Numerous 'mass shootings'
The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals'
need to be exterminated.
Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted
'news' etc.
sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM
Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic
audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit
of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC,
ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he
was pencilled in) was the sniper.
Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed
that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly
- - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late
1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).
Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents
(and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).
2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM
Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and
Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us
All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine
got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats
have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their
machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate
billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.
Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations
cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The
Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary,
and probably not a few rino's too.
It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair,
the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss
DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM
The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers
all over this election and elections all over the planet.
The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and
blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even
in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or
spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or
millions.
You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the
world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.
... ... ..
G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM
What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self
annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to
believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines,
good lord!
Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM
As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration,
of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim
with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running
the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.
Interesting times , more and more so.
66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:
Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and
pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are
they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly
4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million
more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even
bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans
don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!
But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly
discredited.
max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM
And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes..
tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it
HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM
Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.
Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM
This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie
for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....
This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s
and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled
to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.
The CIA is as worthless as HRC.
Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a
reboot.
Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM
Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about
the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more
stable place w/o the Clintons in power.
TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM
If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they
will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he
would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How
much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath
of a well armed population?
Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM
The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper
sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself
saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever
about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous
pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve
their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.
mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
As reported on infowars:
On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit
supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security
"interests"".
Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration
on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.
Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia.
The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated
Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion
of human rights, Saudi Arabia.
Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the
Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center
for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered
as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they
do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states
have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies
branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.
And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With
training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with
other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell
deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians
such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners.
So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control,
of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing
from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.
As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing
so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians,
non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the
driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him.
If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia
- and won't care in the least.
Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM
So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and
the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically
every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand,
Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets
and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.
Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood,
Europe...you lost.
seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM
The Reverse Blockade
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth
blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of
healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its
opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize
that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method.
" page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
more
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM
that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.
Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.
I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity:
"The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming
(no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.
The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50%
of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.
What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would
be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail
or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.
Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?
madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM
Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA
Spying.
I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment,
anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead
a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get
their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the
country falls apart in chaos.
northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM
Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to
corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.
I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be
in the Alinsky handbook.
Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM
Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc.
- means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM
Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing
funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.
Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Putin for Secretary of State... :-)
brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM
Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities
and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.
Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA
to make war without congressional approval or oversight.
A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism
have been initiated by the CIA
Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding
war.
Rein in the executive and the CIA
DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM
This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that
fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice
on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's
play.
At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this
story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged
traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of
Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.
Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles
and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the
people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false
flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over
the years into the CIA
The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows
how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent
trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies,
coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by
the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than
we think.
Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe
to actually promote the Russian hacking?
Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone
other than a fool should listen to them?
small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM
At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere
in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is
very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably
best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.
As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA
war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.
Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.
marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM
what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus
freak show.
Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo
in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration
with open arms.
I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and
maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing
his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly
up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which
is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no
doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.
In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even
consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface,
maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter.
perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as
if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times
when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight
of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like
to think.
after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria
so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?
and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in
a while bubbles up to the surface?
CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM
The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate
all sorts of irrational BS.
However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.
The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B'
and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the
original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the
1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against
the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified
and For Real
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...
The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political
agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans'
in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli
wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading
parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable
outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.
This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor
intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this
intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature
of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.
YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM
This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above
the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from
the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action.
The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.
Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself
in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in
his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake"
is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when
billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted
to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more
than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good"
with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was
a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.
So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of
government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room
together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy.
I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power
bases to manipulate him.
Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged.
He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses
of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped
this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue
with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is
how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that,
launch a coup d'etat.
It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American
public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to
destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was
his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose
his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong
choices, granted, but understandable.
He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent
their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a
complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie
Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in
power.
flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of
him,,
+1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun
calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself
on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the
establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own
party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated
against him as I type.
There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides.
One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make
Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking)
entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of
choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.
blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think
in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog
and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like
a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in
thier boots.
YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives
in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected
in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third
party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for
the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going
on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute.
Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American
community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement
and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to
be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die
for their beliefs.
Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the
highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world
where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency
does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying
to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was
not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts
on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president.
It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.
brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM
Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during
an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort
to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in
the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science'
departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is
going to take it away.
"... Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions ..."
"... "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society." ..."
"... Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. ..."
"... Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions ..."
Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions
The role of the Alawites in Syria first became apparent after World War I with the division of the
Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France. The division resulted in the assignment
of Palestine to Britain and Syria and Lebanon to France. France, fearing potential independence movements
and Arab nationalism which threatened its control over the region, intentionally inflamed sectarian
separations
during its mandate from 1920-1946 . Minorities, such as the Druze and Alawites, also
feared the nationalist movements that were mostly dominated by Sunnis. With France fearing movements
threatening its power and minorities fearing similar movements for more religious reasons, France
pragmatically granted autonomy to areas where these minorities were heavily populated. On July 1,
1922, "the state of Latakia" was established for the Alawites, and by September 15, 1922, a court
decision granted the Alawites legal autonomy. Not only did such autonomy strengthen the weaker minorities,
but it also allowed for distinctions between religions and sects to be created thus preventing a
unification of all Arabs and
ensuring the preservation of France's power . Until 1942, and except for a three-year period
from 1936 to 1939, the Alawites and Druze remained separate from the rest of unified Syria. To ensure
sectarian divisions and to prevent any takeover by Arab nationalists, France deliberately ignored
developing a ruling elite, coupling such a decision by having each institution represented by a different
religious or ethnic group. Any former amicable relationship between the minority and Sunni majority
and any possibility of growth in the nationalist movement in Syria deteriorated significantly because
of
France's "divide and rule" policy .
This new relationship between groups in Syria
continued after Syria's independence in April 1946 , stymieing any attempts for Arab unification
and fostering greater attention towards local ambitions. Before independence from France, Syrians
were united under one party and the common goal of achieving independence. After independence, a
Sunni elite became in charge of the government, and integration of the minorities into Syrian society
was necessary for a more nationalist approach. To eliminate regionalism and the domination of the
minorities in parliament (due to their close relationship with France under its mandate), the Sunnis
attempted
to limit the representation of the concentrated minority groups in parliament. The Sunni elite
eradicated the Alawite state, parliamentary seats, and certain minority jurisdictional rights.
The abolition of jurisdictional rights in order to establish a centralized rule in Damascus
ignited confrontation among the minorities . . . The Alawites became reconciled to common Syrian
citizenship and gave up the dream of a separate Alawite state. This change of outlook, which seemed
to be of minor importance at the time, actually led to a new era in Syrian politics: the political
rise of the Alawites.
The basis for sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Alawites is evident when one considers the
change from Alawite autonomy to subordination under the Sunnis.
Formed in 1921, the
Troupes Spéciales du Levant was a local military used by the French that eventually evolved into
the Lebanese and Syrian military. Similar to France's "divide and rule" approach, the integration
of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was done in a way so that it was difficult for any group to attain
enough power to threaten French rule. Given the threatening nature of the Sunnis at the time, many
of whom supported Arab nationalist movements, the military gained
a large minority presence , and "military recruitment involved weakening the forces of nationalism
that Arab Sunnis used to challenge the French over the future of Syria." Sectarian tensions were
further developed with the creation of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant, given that the minority-dominated
military
frequently suppressed Sunni movements .
Minorities frequently found themselves joining the military because it provided a source of income
and potential for social mobility. Unlike the Sunni elites-who refused to send their children into
the military under the pretense that it was furthering France's imperial desires and used their money
to become exempt from military service-the Alawites and other minorities
took advantage of the potential opportunity the military provided. By 1949 (the year of the first
military coup in Syria), the Alawites had gained a political presence. By 1955, about 65% of the
non-commissioned officers were Alawites. Before 1963, the Alawites did not outnumber the Sunnis in
the officer corps, but they did dominate the lower positions of the military. Nevertheless
, the trend towards higher ranking positions began after Syrian independence from France. After
Syria's independence, the number of schools in Syria expanded greatly.
[1]
This expansion gave lower class citizens more educational opportunities, and they became more
qualified for military academies, such as the Military Academy at Homs.
[2]
Sunni leaders believed that dominating the higher positions in the military was enough to ensure
Sunni command of the military. This notion
proved to be a key factor in the Sunni elite's demise.
As the Alawites continued to dominate the lower ranks and ascend towards higher positions, the
higher-ranking Sunnis failed to remain unified. The Sunnis led
three military coups from 1949 to 1954. With the formation and establishment of the Syrian-Egyptian
Union from 1954 to 1958, the officer corps failed to remain unified and split into factions. Even
after the Sunni officer-led "union pledge" in January 1958, a coup led by Sunni officers in September
1961 resulted in Syria's
separation from the union . The lack of unity between Sunni officers, specifically after Syria's
break from the union,
[3]
"greatly weakened Sunni representation in the officer corps and strengthened the minorities,
mainly the Alawite officer corps. 'As
Sunni officers eliminated each other , Alawites inherited their positions and became increasingly
senior; as one [Alawite] rose through the ranks, he brought his kinsmen along.'"
Along with the military, the Baathist movement in Syria fostered greater Alawite power and furthered
sectarian tensions. Unlike pan-Arabism, which, "aimed at the political resurrection of the Arabs
as one nation" and had a
strong association with Sunni Islam , "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism
in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society."
Pan-Arab nationalists attempted to incorporate Islam into the pan-Arab movement for they believed
that the religion played an integral role in both Arab history and culture. Even though the pan-Arab
movement was considered to be spearheaded by Sunnis from the perspective of the minorities, many
Sunnis disapproved of pan-Arabism because Islam
did not play a sufficient role in its doctrine. While many Sunnis believed in a
doctrine more heavily influenced by Islam , "the religious minorities supported the Baath's nationalistic
ideology, in which all Arabs were equal, whether Sunni Muslims, Alawites or members of other heterodox
Muslim communities or Christians."
Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar,
the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from
foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. By April 1947, the Baath Congress gathered in Damascus,
and another party, comprised mainly of Alawites, emerged with similar ideas. While the group supported
Baathist ideas such as Arab independence and unity, the members followed Alawite scholar Zaki Arsuzi
(follower of Alawite socialist, Dr. Wahib al-Ghanim), who placed priority on social justice. Ghanim
insisted that particular socialist ideas be adopted
into the Baathist constitution . While Aflaq rejected such adamancy, Bitar consented to uniting
the Baath and Arab Socialist Party, which advocated for the same issues as Ghanim. Akram al-Hawrani,
the leader of the Arab Socialist Party, received the support of many rural Alawites and young Alawite
officers. With the merger of the two parties into the Arab Baath Socialist Party in September 1953,
the Baathist movement gained strong support from officers (presumably minority officers) and the
Alawite community, given the fact that the party's advocacy for social justice would inherently
bolster the Alawites against the repressive Sunni s.
While the Syrian-Egyptian Union resulted in the disbandment of all political parties, the Baathist
ideology remained with organized Alawite groups that had a sizeable amount of control over the Latakian
region. Thus,
after Syria seceded from the union in 1961 , the Alawites "were the strongest and most organized
force in the much-weakened national organization." During the Syrian-Egyptian Union, a military faction
within the Baath Party developed, and
a secret organization among Baathist-supporting officers in Egypt was created in 1959.
Dr. Ayse Tekdal Fildis writes :
The goal of the organization was to restore the Syrian army to Syrian control. The members
of this secret military organization, eventually known as the military committee, were not involved
in the Baath's traditional leadership or party structure. They operated as one of several politically
active groups of officers involved in the dissolution of the union in 1961 and in the fight for
political control of Syria during the subsequent year and a half.
Following Syria's separation from the union, the Baath Party gained political potency swiftly.
The Baath Party itself became a national ruling party only after the Baathist military faction's
coup on March 8, 1963, which overthrew the "
separatist regime " (responsible for Syria's secession from the Syrian-Egyptian Union and was
undergoing infighting among Sunni leaders).
With the rise of the Baath Party came the rise of and partiality towards the Alawites given the
group's dominance in the Baath Party and its representation in the Baathist military faction (specifically
the Military Committee). After this coup, the minority representation in the officer corps, especially
that of the Alawites, increased greatly as Baathist military leaders (
five out of the fourteen members of the Military Committee were Alawites ) attempted to consolidate
their power.
[4]
"The climax of the [Baathists'] power [monopolization] came on [
July 18, 1963 ], when a group of predominantly Sunni Nasserist officers, led by Colonel Jasim
'Alwan, staged an abortive coup. Most of the officers who suppressed this coup, not without bloodshed,
were of minoritarian backgrounds, and among them [Alawites] played a prominent role."
[5]
Discrimination between Sunnis and the minorities became prevalent and more apparent in the years
following 1963. In order to strategically preserve Baathist and minority power, army units were filled
with "trusted" officers and stationed in tactical areas such as Damascus.
[6]
Units filled with non-minority members were more likely to be stationed in areas farther from
the Baathist stronghold. These
moves allowed for the military coup on February 23, 1966, which resulted in
Alawite
control of Damascus , to take place.
Even as the Military Committee came into power following 1963, the leaders began to split and
gain the support of those regionally and ideologically tied with them to bolster their individual
powers. While leaders frequently strengthened themselves with people of the same sectarian background,
alliances amongst the Military Committee leaders were not always along sectarian lines, and many
times were merely for practical reasons to pursue their interests.
[7]
In 1970,
both
Alawite rivalries and Syria's series of coups "were put to rest with a bloodless military coup
led by then-air force commander and Defense Minister Gen. Hafiz [al-Assad] (now deceased) against
his Alawite rival, Salah Jadid. [Al-Assad] was the first Alawite leader capable of dominating the
fractious Alawite sect."
Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions
Following the coup in 1970, which effectively marked the beginning of the Assad regime that exists
today, Hafez al-Assad consolidated his power among trusted Alawites and prominent Sunnis in order
to strategically thwart potential revolts by the Sunni majority. Specifically, he "
stacked
the security apparatus with loyal clansmen while taking care to build patronage networks with
Druze and Christian minorities that facilitated the [al-Assad] rise." Additionally
, to
mollify Sunni dissatisfaction , the Assad "leadership co-opted key Sunni military and business
elites, relying on notables like former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass to contain dissent
within the military and Alawite big-business families like the Makhloufs to buy loyalty, or at least
tolerance, among a Sunni merchant class that had seen most of its assets seized and redistributed
by the state." Such actions facilitated resentment from Sunnis, especially Sunnis extremists. Hafez
al-Assad further engendered tensions between the Alawites and outspoken Sunni Islamists by constraining
their abilities to spread the Sunni religious doctrine. The
regime
took over religious funding and discharged leaders of Friday prayers. Along with consolidating
power through sectarian means, Hafez al-Assad politically established himself. In the
period from 1971-1973 , Assad bolstered himself through a nominated Baath legislature, confirmed
himself as President for a seven-year term through a national referendum, and established a new constitution
that declared Syria a secular socialist state with Islam being the majority religion.
With the Assad regime stabilized and consolidated through the support of Alawites, minority groups,
and key Sunnis, any attempts to overthrow the regime were suppressed and only added to the sectarian
tensions that already existed at the beginning of Hafez al-Assad's leadership. Such suppression peaked
in the regime's crackdown on Sunni insurgents led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who were protesting
Assad's new constitution. The
constitution had established a secular state and allowed a non-Muslim to be president (
this was
later amended ). The uprising, intended to overthrow the heretical Assad regime, began in 1976
and became the most violent in 1982, in Hama. In this Sunni-populated town, Assad and his Alawite
constituency
killed up to 20,000 residents . Since the incident at Hama, the Alawites continued to consolidate
power and
control over Syria . The Assad regime also preserved its power by overcoming various potential
destabilizers: events that if handled improperly could have undermined the whole Assad regime. An
attempted coup by Hafez al-Assad's brother, the death of Hafez al-Assad's apparent heir, Syria's
frequent feuds with Israel, and Syria's involvement in Lebanon,
all
had the potential to destabilize the Assad regime . Rather, Assad dealt with these events in
ways that either preserved Assad's rule or further strengthened the regime's power.
Following the death of Hafez al-Assad on June 10, 2000, the Syrian parliament reduced the minimum
age for
presidential eligibility from 40 to 34 allowing Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, to run
for president and maintain the regime. Bashar al-Assad's regime preserved its ruling authority by
imprisoning activists who
advocated for democratic elections in August 2001 .
It is important to note that while an apparent bias towards Alawites existed under the Assad regime,
both Assads claimed that Syria was a non-sectarian state. For this reason, many Alawites still remain
poor, and the Syrian education system promotes
the majority
orthodox faith in Syria, Sunni Islam . Moreover, dissent amongst Alawites exists in Syria, and
Alawite dissenters have sometimes experienced
harsher punishments than non-Alawites . Additionally, the Alawite regime did not completely repress
the Sunni majority and promote Alawi Islam. Rather, the Alawite regime under Hafez al-Assad attempted
to gain approval from the Sunni population as well as create a new relationship and distinction between
government and Islam. According to
Joshua Landis , director of the Center for Middle East Studies,
When [Hafez al-Assad] came to power in 1970, one of his primary goals was to establish a new
balance between the government and Islam. One of the central planks of his "Corrective Movement"
was to abandon the radical secularism and socialism of the Jadid regime that preceded him. Although
he reached out to Sunni clerics, giving them greater leeway in society, he strictly limited their
influence in politics. At the same time, he encouraged Alawites to embrace mainstream Islam. He
declared the Alawites to be nothing but Twelver [Shias], forbade Alawite Shaykhs to venerate Ali
excessively, and set the example for his people by adhering to Sunni practice. He built mosques
in Alawite towns, prayed publicly and fasted and encouraged his people to do the same. In short
he tried to turn Alawites into "good" (read Sunnified) Muslims in exchange for preserving a modicum
of secularism and tolerance in society To police this understanding, he squashed any semblance
of democracy in Syrian political life, forbidding elections even within professional organizations
and trade unions. As a result, civil society was crushed, ministries became havens for mafia groups,
and any political life outside the secretive factions in the regime came to a standstill.
Besides obtaining support from outside nations and groups such as Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah,
Assad's regime initially received support from the Alawite community. The Alawites supported Assad
for various reasons. While some backed the regime out of pure loyalty, other Alawites understood
their
fate if Assad's Alawite regime were to fall .
For the latter group, the downfall of Assad would inevitably result in another Sunni rule, allowing
the Sunni elite to once again
oppress the Alawites . More importantly, given the acts of the Assad regime (including the killing
in Hama), many Alawites understood
their grim fate if Sunnis regained power and exacted their revenge for the loss of thousands
of innocent Sunnis. For the most part, "the Assad regime has played on Alawite
fears to help it stay in power ." Nevertheless, "the wholehearted loyalty that Hafez enjoyed
in his early stage of rule has switched to another type of connection for Bashar
based on sectarian insecurity ."
"... I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it. ..."
"... What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well. ..."
"... It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life. ..."
"... The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people. ..."
"... The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. ..."
"... One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts. ..."
I do not object to the word, tribalism, though I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing
pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it.
What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's
reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's
identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.
It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity
is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the
decline of social affiliation in all areas of life.
In an American context, a long-standing theme of right-wing televised and on-line propaganda has
aimed at motivating people on the basis of their resentments against the supposed contempt the hated
libruls have for "God and guns" and the self-regarding moral superiority of those driving a Prius
and listening to National Public Radio.
I would not want to be understood as saying that tribalism is symmetric between right and left;
I do think what has been happening on the right has been driven by social reaction to what has been
happening on the left, and the interpretation the left has of the right is just as driven by motivated
reasoning, even if the motivations are different. The left's sometime focus on language, micro aggression
and personal experience cum personal justification thru enlightened attitudes is a manifestation
of the decline of social affiliation, so there is an irony in naming the pseudo in-group conformity
that results, "tribalism". The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has
contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion
at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people.
The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social
organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the
authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. The angry, uncomprehending reaction to the vote
from cosmopolitans reinforced the "tribalism" of both, but to see that requires a modicum of detachment
from the angry accusation that racism and lies was the whole case and denies the legitimacy of economic
grievance.
One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there
is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the
basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts.
I am not so certain that the left, as it has sunk into a denial laden defense of the status
quo, has not also been shedding its attachment to a policy program, Hillary's proverbial website
notwithstanding. Democrats associated with the party establishment especially in the 2016 campaign
talked policy futility and never acted as if a concerted effort to, say, capture the Senate with
an eye on opening a policy agenda mattered to them. And, many ordinary supporters of the Democrats
seemed to be blithely unaware or apathetic about the policy record of war, economic predation, et
cetera.
Without a policy agenda, the tribes cannot be proper constituencies demanding delivery on promises,
which fits a continuation of neoliberal policy agenda just fine, but foretells, it seems to me, disillusion,
apathy, violence and loss of legitimacy becoming acute. If mobilizing the tribes substitutes for
a politics of coherent policy, it is hard to imagine any but ineffectual albeit authoritarian governance.
General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus
fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement.
Foreign Policy 's
Thomas Ricks reported :
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way-not
because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House,
but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order
consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable.
Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What
do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for
U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"
Washington did have a "strategy" when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This
was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing,
"Shock and Awe" we called
it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar
American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central
Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent
upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate
and obey Washington's plans.
With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to "win" and come
home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American "strategy" has usually been to
return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu's
dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely
to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.
While Bashar al Assad has not created ISIS whose roots are in humiliated Saddam Hossein
Sunni generals and soldiers, it is obvious that he did not prevent them from
infiltrating the 'rebels'. He wanted a clash between the 'rebels' mostly inspired by the
Moslem Brotherhood (who has "succeeded" in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) and with other
Sunni Islamists who had a more extreme ideology.
The 'rebels' ( later taken over by Al Nusra) were funded by Qatar and Turkey ( fans of
the MB) while the Salafists ( later ISIS) originated in Iraq, Pakistan and other
countries were funded by Saudi Arabia.
Bashar al Assad threw them face to face in order to weaken them. Its quite possible that
he managed to keep their dissension alive by sometime executing one side to get a
violent response of the other. That was a very smart strategy. He helped transforming
the 'moderate' rebels into violent fighters motivated by money and revenge that soon
were labelled terrorists by the Western world.
The war was had threefold: Salafists against Moslem Brotherhood, and both against the
Syrian army. As the funds and support the Islamist were getting from Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey were unlimited, the Syrian army found itself in a dire
situation, despite the help from Arab Shia militias. The intervention of Russia changed
the whole picture. Later the Kurdish factor has weakened Turkey further and the failed
Yemen war made Saudi Arabia less generous with the 'rebels'. Only Qatar has continued to
fund them.
Thus Bashar al Assad may have benefited from the emergence of ISIS in the
beginning but he was about to be overrun without Russia and Iran's support.
For Russia and Iran, the fall of Bashar al Assad meant the massacre of the Shia,
Alawites and Christians and violent struggle between the two extremist Islamist factions
( MB and Salafists) with incompatible ideology.
It was clear that Bashar al Assad should not be allowed to be toppled and they acted
accordingly independently of the civilian casualties.
The delirious state of the ruling European elites has been displayed on public when
the
Guardian
published their last demand:
'European leaders, notably the French, are privately warning Vladimir Putin that
if he permits Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, to turn an expected capture of
Aleppo into a military victory across most of the country, it will be up to Russia to
foot the bill for reconstruction.'
It looks that those in power in London, Paris, Berlin are completely brain dead,
since they seem to be unable to recall who destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan
and a number of other countries.
The United States, with the avid support provided by the EU, have killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, while destroying the homes and the infrastructure that
supported those that they spared, which resulted in a veritable exodus of migrants
from the Middle East and Africa to Europe.
So, maybe they should be paying the bills instead of forcing smaller European
countries to provide shelter for the refugees they created in the first place.
And what about Washington's responsibility?
Let's see ...
- If the US hires the Israelis to build a wall on the Mexican border, and the
Mexicans should pay for it, and
- If the US uses NATO to surround Russia and to start a war with that country, and the
Europeans should pay for it - and fight it
- Then Europeans should welcome the refugees from the USraeli/USaudi wars in the Middle
East and USropean wars in NA as well, right?
Trumpian logic 101.
I don't think Trump's counterparts in Europe are going to see it that way, once
they're elected as he was, out the revulsion of the population with USropean policies
that have left them financially devastated, bankrupts themselves.
Maybe China should pay? Right.
Maybe the Saudis and the GCC should pay ... they paid to destroy the ME, might they
not be compelled to pay to put it back together again? Seems like a Trumpian solution to
me. I imagine he can get his up and coming counterparts in Europe to go along with that.
While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone's corridors of power have
been undergoing a remarkable transformation
The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more
reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi,
Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has
suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior
adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the
political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively
politically toxic.
This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the
successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.
It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign
debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the
corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the
financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was
also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.
Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname
as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical
voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming
weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are
intricately tied up with the answer to that question.
Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers,
argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the
run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European
politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what
you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set
of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."
This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business
wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians
who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to
provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public
service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project
is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell
the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.
Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in
academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European
Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner
for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made
decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman's bankers were
working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's
committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country's financial policies.
With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of
international advisers. The bank's two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal
lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers
include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European
Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.
Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General
of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now
non-executive chairman of Goldman's UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International,
and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank
of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing
that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's
financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.
Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the
Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi,
who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in
and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian
Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International
between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.
Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and
other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a
decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent
size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above 60 per cent of the
size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women
of Goldman Sachs.
The bank's traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to
cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman
channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a
cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece,
was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now
to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime
Minister in Greece's unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at
the time.
Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro
rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who
came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK
parliamentary hearing last year: "It is clear with hindsight that the standards of
transparency could have been and probably should have been higher."
When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at
the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn't involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at
Goldman.
It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is
effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a "voluntary" haircut of
50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of
bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the
continent's big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The
combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and
Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the
IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to
this consensus.
"My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of
€1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?" says Simon Johnson. "It means bailing out the
creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different,
in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the
same."
So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing
bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of
Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took
control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that
Italian government bonds will not default.
When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to
do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest
bankruptcies in US history.
The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made
insolvent. Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed
amount on eurozone countries' debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn
of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone
under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from
the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the
reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a
second economic collapse.
Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?
Ben @ 10, it's not the USA that's addicted to war. Rather it is the US
govt AS CAPTURED BY THE OLIGARCHS. Nor is it truly an addiction, but a
means to the end of a global oligarchy. It isn't enough to see the evil
of US aggression. One must also understand why the international
institutions which have usurped nationhood around the world are evil:
Fed/IMF system, World Bank, WTO and the entire UN system to which they
belong. US hegemony has never been intended as the endgame. Oligarchical
global govt is-- initially as a decentralized administration which they
are already trying to sell you as "multipolarity".
If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to
increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
Notable quotes:
"... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
"... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
"... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
"... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
I've hesitated about whether to apply the word
"neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow
the Christian
Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle,
Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of
using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's
long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other
White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this
category.)
Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand
are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt
Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the
"Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly
competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil
and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than
the fate of Israel.
Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the
administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.
If conflict with China is inevitable,
it makes sense to have U.S. bases in
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq and maybe Iran and Syria. If China is dependent
on Middle East oil, it makes sense for the U.S. to be able to control how and
where it flows from the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf oil fields.
It makes sense
to cultivate an alliance with India, risking the accusation of nuclear
hypocrisy in doing so. It makes sense to ratchet up tensions on the Korean
Peninsula, by linking North Korea to Iran and Iraq, calling it "evil,"
dismissing South Korea's "sunshine diplomacy" efforts and encouraging Japan to
take a hard line towards Pyongyang.
It makes sense to get Tokyo to declare, for
the first time, that the security of the Taiwan Straights is of common concern
to it and Washington. It makes sense to regain a strategic toehold in the
Philippines, in the name of the War on Terror, and to vilify the growing
Filipino Maoist movement.
It makes sense for a man like Cheney, who decided on
Bush's staff in late 2000, to seed the cabinet with strategically-placed
neocons who have a vision of a new Middle East.
Because
(1) that vision fits in
perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and
(2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their
fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its
Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve
as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."
They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies
the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers'
objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're
inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their
actions as "an
answer to the Holocaust."
They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all
being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his
article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains
today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to
seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick
Cheney remains in ascendancy."
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at:
[email protected]
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s –
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
– say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? – World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the
nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If
so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution
and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican
contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed
establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound
his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.
What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All
have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties
like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would
mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their
own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton
backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this
case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.
Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else
has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration,
while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.
The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all
faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is
this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?
Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial
Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this
New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding
the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between
managerial and New Class elites.
♦♦♦
The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier
stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed,
was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.
Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked
on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind
had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.
But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists,
while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run
by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.
Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading
Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet
mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs
of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to
the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.
Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not
own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise
and administrative prowess.
The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians
: "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as
to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy,
and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental"
power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.
The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain
their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between
big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex
to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with
the French-British Concorde.)
America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of
defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?"
Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system
of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded
forms of business enterprise."
McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But
the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart
19th-century classical liberals.
National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It
was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying.
The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes
in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.
More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class."
"This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall
Street Journal :
It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial
society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists
and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in
the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy,
and so on.
"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational
system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."
Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:
I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous
actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after
all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers
of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going
to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?
Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided
with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation
and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state
reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however,
amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.
The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism
of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.
Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach
to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree,
so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."
He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics.
The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were
evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.
Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers
or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following
the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie
to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.
Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous
militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory
state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like
Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.
Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment
to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the
protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare
is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.
The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also
enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps
keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like
many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining
managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.
The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange
for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian
ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its
class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize
its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony
helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.
♦♦♦
So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses
stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.
Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes,
"big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the
bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.
The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite
its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment,
minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right
faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders
had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.
The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of
the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype
of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.
This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might
welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .
Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary
nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers
do not.
"Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big
government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan
establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."
My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class
members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage
of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?
I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation
and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers
focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed
their unwieldy corporations.
You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And
instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial
cultural effects.
This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their
structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system
of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing
to them immense economic power?
I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs,
Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund
gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the
managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.
If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not
Managerialism.
There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed
of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree
in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy
in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed
by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century
is not a new or unique phenomenon.
In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists
and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class
forces that are colliding during this election cycle.
Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call
themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.
In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated
journalists "very high or high."
By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.
It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.
Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really.
Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions
from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the
roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through
stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers
and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.
I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.
One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators,
the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about
the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.
Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.
A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class
and its business enterprises.
The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class,
but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).
I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic
power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.
I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels.
It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information
captured through use of digital technology.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military
expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
[New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative
think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous
Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the
Globalized Economy and financial markets.
Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class
voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized
working class.
Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the
old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy
houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the
stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.
The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous
Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded
rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.
Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally
decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those
who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist
Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages
and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.
Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what
a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most
successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college
educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see
now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and
Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.
Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times –
nationalism vs. Globalism.
The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know?
Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation
state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.
Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening
I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a
result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.
In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money
and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government.
The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government
ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives
are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both
are right in a sense.
The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite
academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been
left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth
and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as
backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against
being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."
The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties'
elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium
and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these
folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively
harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.
I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.
I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens
regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been
comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what
has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks
and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance,
should you attempt this FYI.
It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both
Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of
the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the
ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.
It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes
on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to
Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and
used for their own liberal ends.
I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront
whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter
tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They
could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.
Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country
for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color
is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of
the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
________________
I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and
social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the
face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the
loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in
the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr.
Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked
in his favor long before the election cycle.
--------
"But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely
Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to
import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."
Hmmmm,
Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance,
self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or
by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially
in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple
for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan
about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives
and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.
And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit
even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the
shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building
computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers,
data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A
degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true.
In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .
How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses
were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back
to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.
That income gap is real and its telling.
___________________
even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs
and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's
very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.
Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class"
are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector
and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.
There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business
Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.
The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization,
industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial
revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.
The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without
it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge
fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen
since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.
The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses,
cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised
mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically
are referring to the latter.
The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who
support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps'
support should not be stereotyped as White.
The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money
to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because
0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has
been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.
"The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated
by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right
in a sense."
Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your
town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors
of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that
the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private
lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure
most of the public fully grasps or desires.
Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think
they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are
under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually
believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.
I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators
wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing
a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities
of the same.
There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless
he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who
supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not
drinking.
As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles
heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention
creep.
Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability
of success, but it makes for great propaganda.
I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over
every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney
cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.
If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military.
He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.
I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when
there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it
falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes.
This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially
benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict
is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but
the underlying conflict will always remain.
State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there.
Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they
would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.
The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among
self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new"
Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated
whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.
People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's,
per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this
the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.
People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not
impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.
I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all
the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable.
Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly
in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli
interests above America's is un-American.
The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable
people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation
where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation,
but of justice being done period.
A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US
dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the
Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation
and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers
instead of a nation of producers.
Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard
goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?
It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya
Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market
utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on.
But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.
And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.
"State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back
in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would
only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."
Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it
did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.
That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality.
But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.
You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge
that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -
I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes
– those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who
think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump
supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas
Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive
sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.
The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions
– political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work.
The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who
are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers
(losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups
in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination
for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together
because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.
I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working
people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration
and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered
by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that
there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization
while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either
party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working
class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch
is the political problem – not new classes etc.
Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with
the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more
prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic
issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.
The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia
and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come
up in the morning now,"
"Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity.
"
During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa?
All voted for Cruz and "muh values".
In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to
face the consequences.
"All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."
That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics
simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data
point would look just the same.
"On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would
benefit hard industry and managerial interests."
This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas
in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute
ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves
versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities
in which they lived.
The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large
institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s –
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
– say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? – World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
"... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
"... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
"... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
"... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
"... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels,
proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin,
tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.
Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid
to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit
fighting Ukrainian troops.
"I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself
at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting
a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.
That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining
a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans
in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists
against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.
Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican
side in Spain.
More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according
to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their
lowest since the Cold War.
The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.
Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia
have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia
and natives of Serbia.
Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm
of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western
accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.
Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former
Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".
Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing
the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against
Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in
between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United
States, which is putting money into all this."
A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters.
An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired
man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available
for comment.
(Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
blazo 6 months ago
Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million
expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.
Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions,
Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What
is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed
to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian
security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings.
Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled
for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow
us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They
burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured
from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades.
Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.
The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question
of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question
of hours.... .
Ricardo 6 months ago
Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts
all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to
fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning
are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this
article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries
that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences
to their country.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
"... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
"... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
"... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
"... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
"... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
"... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
"... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
"... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
"... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
"... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
"... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
"... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
"... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
"... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
"... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
"... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
"... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
"... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
"... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
"... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
"... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
"... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
"... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
"... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
"... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
"... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
"... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
"... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
"... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
"... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
"... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
"... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
"... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
"... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Originally published at
The Frontline
There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well
be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans
Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America,
Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the
European Union.
President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power.
"We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position
of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China
will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case
for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before
the November Presidential election in the US.
However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the
coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to
back the deal.
Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case
this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and
it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being
pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant
trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack
on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.
The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global
trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen
the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written
into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.
But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion
as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the
TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the
agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality
and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January
2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively
small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality.
Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.
But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any
case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire
discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the
less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating
effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:
the intellectual property provisions,
the restrictions on regulatory practices
the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions
on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens,
would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations
For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing
exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life
forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed
and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed
by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.
This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general
make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation
of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through
public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because
of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.
There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers
are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established
players.
The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to
states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed
out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of
citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting
domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.
All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived
to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State
Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then
subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards
and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts
can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through
case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore
are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal"
treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the
incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors,
rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.
If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance
to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to
bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize
of all.
So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US
and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.
I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted,
pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering
comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties,
but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it
up!
A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of
vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.
The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when
they are following mandates of a foreign government.
"I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.
The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the
Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for
Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.
Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever
that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and
simple.
This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level
consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.
While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between
Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally
a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)
Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!
We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton
and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.
Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .
Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" -
this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it.
Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.
Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being
against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.
>only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.
At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World
countries . assuming there are any left.
We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply.
The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our
own products.
Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers
with foreign visa workers.
But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and
small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today
in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their
insurance company (GEICO, etc.).
I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into
the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the
Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty,
the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc.,
etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus
program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke),
but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of
a "Buy America" clause in the future!
The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if
TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade.
the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.
In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President
Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.
According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages
that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement
between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge
governments over investment disputes.
In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration
exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."
It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out
that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.
Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings
to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.
The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
"US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification
of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."
That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.
Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons
but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning
them into good consumerist slaves.
Funny how little things change over the centuries.
The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall.
Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.
"How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.
The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of
the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".
Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada
and Mexico.
Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP
of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China
shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".
Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the
anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.
If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having
a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really
get Free Trade killed and destroyed.
Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement
(ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has
a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?
Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to
the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was
that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.
At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the
Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else
after she left. Or face criminal charges.
Yeah. Nothing secret about that.
Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering
to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury
Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men
who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.
And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President
Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!
It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock
of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic
gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.
So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency
conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).
In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start,
trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.
I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave
labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations
or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical
microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already
know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of
rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements
when this is the result?
Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit
of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.
This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the
nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If
so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution
and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican
contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed
establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound
his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.
What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All
have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties
like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would
mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their
own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton
backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this
case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.
Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else
has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration,
while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.
The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all
faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is
this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?
Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial
Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this
New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding
the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between
managerial and New Class elites.
♦♦♦
The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier
stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed,
was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.
Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked
on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind
had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.
But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists,
while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run
by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.
Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading
Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet
mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs
of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to
the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.
Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not
own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise
and administrative prowess.
The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians
: "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as
to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy,
and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental"
power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.
The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain
their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between
big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex
to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with
the French-British Concorde.)
America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of
defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?"
Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system
of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded
forms of business enterprise."
McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But
the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart
19th-century classical liberals.
National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It
was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying.
The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes
in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.
More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class."
"This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall
Street Journal :
It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial
society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists
and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in
the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy,
and so on.
"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational
system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."
Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:
I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous
actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after
all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers
of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going
to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?
Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided
with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation
and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state
reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however,
amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.
The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism
of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.
Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach
to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree,
so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."
He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics.
The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were
evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.
Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers
or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following
the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie
to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.
Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous
militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory
state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like
Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.
Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment
to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the
protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare
is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.
The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also
enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps
keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like
many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining
managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.
The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange
for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian
ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its
class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize
its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony
helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.
♦♦♦
So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses
stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.
Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes,
"big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the
bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.
The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite
its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment,
minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right
faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders
had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.
The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of
the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype
of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.
This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might
welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .
Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary
nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers
do not.
"Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big
government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan
establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."
My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class
members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage
of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?
I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation
and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers
focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed
their unwieldy corporations.
You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And
instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial
cultural effects.
This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their
structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system
of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing
to them immense economic power?
I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs,
Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund
gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the
managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.
If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not
Managerialism.
There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed
of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree
in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy
in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed
by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century
is not a new or unique phenomenon.
In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists
and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class
forces that are colliding during this election cycle.
Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call
themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.
In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated
journalists "very high or high."
By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.
It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.
Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really.
Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions
from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the
roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through
stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers
and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.
I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.
One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators,
the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about
the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.
Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.
A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class
and its business enterprises.
The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class,
but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).
I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic
power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.
I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels.
It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information
captured through use of digital technology.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military
expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
[New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative
think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous
Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the
Globalized Economy and financial markets.
Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class
voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized
working class.
Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the
old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy
houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the
stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.
The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous
Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded
rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.
Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally
decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those
who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist
Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages
and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.
Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what
a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most
successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college
educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see
now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and
Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.
Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times –
nationalism vs. Globalism.
The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know?
Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation
state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.
Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening
I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a
result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.
In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money
and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government.
The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government
ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives
are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both
are right in a sense.
The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite
academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been
left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth
and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as
backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against
being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."
The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties'
elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium
and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these
folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively
harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.
I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.
I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens
regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been
comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what
has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks
and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance,
should you attempt this FYI.
It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both
Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of
the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the
ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.
It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes
on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to
Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and
used for their own liberal ends.
I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront
whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter
tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They
could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.
Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country
for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color
is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of
the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
________________
I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and
social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the
face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the
loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in
the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr.
Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked
in his favor long before the election cycle.
--------
"But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely
Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to
import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."
Hmmmm,
Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance,
self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or
by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially
in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple
for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan
about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives
and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.
And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit
even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the
shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building
computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers,
data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A
degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true.
In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .
How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses
were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back
to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.
That income gap is real and its telling.
___________________
even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs
and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's
very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.
Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class"
are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector
and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.
There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business
Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.
The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization,
industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial
revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.
The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without
it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge
fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen
since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.
The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses,
cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised
mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically
are referring to the latter.
The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who
support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps'
support should not be stereotyped as White.
The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money
to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because
0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has
been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.
"The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated
by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right
in a sense."
Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your
town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors
of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that
the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private
lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure
most of the public fully grasps or desires.
Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think
they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are
under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually
believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.
I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators
wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing
a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities
of the same.
There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless
he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who
supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not
drinking.
As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles
heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention
creep.
Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability
of success, but it makes for great propaganda.
I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over
every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney
cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.
If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military.
He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.
I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when
there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it
falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes.
This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially
benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict
is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but
the underlying conflict will always remain.
State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there.
Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they
would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.
The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among
self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new"
Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated
whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.
People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's,
per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this
the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.
People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not
impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.
I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all
the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable.
Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly
in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli
interests above America's is un-American.
The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable
people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation
where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation,
but of justice being done period.
A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US
dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the
Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation
and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers
instead of a nation of producers.
Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard
goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?
It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya
Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market
utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on.
But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.
And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.
"State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back
in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would
only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."
Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it
did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.
That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality.
But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.
You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge
that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -
I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes
– those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who
think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump
supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas
Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive
sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.
The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions
– political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work.
The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who
are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers
(losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups
in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination
for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together
because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.
I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working
people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration
and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered
by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that
there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization
while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either
party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working
class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch
is the political problem – not new classes etc.
Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with
the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more
prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic
issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.
The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia
and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come
up in the morning now,"
"Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity.
"
During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa?
All voted for Cruz and "muh values".
In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to
face the consequences.
"All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."
That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics
simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data
point would look just the same.
"On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would
benefit hard industry and managerial interests."
This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas
in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute
ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves
versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities
in which they lived.
The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large
institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.
"... I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been for centuries. ..."
Well, if you looked at it and decided against it why am I wasting my time? "unlike the U.S.
military which is used to destroys foreign cities without much thought of the aftermath" Always
with the nasty, sneering, condescending attitude toward us. I remind you that it was the BRITISH
army that destroyed your grandparents house, not the US Army. pl"
and the usa has learned and followed the British in so many of it's imperialist ways carrying
the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough of British or
American
bullshit..
@ james who wrote " and the usa has learned and followed the british in so many of it's imperialist
ways caring the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough
of british or american bullshit."
I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own
private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British
people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been
for centuries.
The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government
by Thomas N. Bisson Princeton University Press, 677 pp., $39.50
One of the major institutions of pre-industrial society, and one that makes it hard for people
in the modern Western world fully to grasp the past, is lordship. Lordship means a personal bond,
reciprocal but not equal, tying inferiors to superiors, bringing the latter a power over the former
that modern democratic and egalitarian ideologies would abhor. We are not accustomed to address
others as "Master" or "Mistress," "My Lord" or "My Lady."
Of course modern Western societies are not communities of equals. Vast differences in wealth
and access to education exist. But the world of lordship embraced and endorsed those differences.
Hierarchy was a valued ideal, and some people considered themselves better born than others-remember
those nineteenth-century novels with characters "of good family." The aristocrats ("aristocracy"
means "rule by the best") did not court their inferiors. They ruled them, and, if they were just
and well disposed, they protected them and furthered their interests. This is what "good lordship"
meant. Not all lords, of course, were good. Submission to cruel, arbitrary, or unhinged masters
could mean misery or death. Much of the savagery of the French Revolution is to be explained by
the fact that thousands of peasants had suffered just such a submission.
Thomas Bisson's new book concerns itself with lordship, that all-pervasive institution, in
a formative period of European history, the twelfth century (or rather the "long twelfth century,"
starting well before 1100 and continuing after 1200). It is an age that evokes for many the majesty
of the great cathedrals, like Chartres and Canterbury, the rise of a new kind of intellectual
inquiry, embodied in the questing spirit of Abelard or the emergence of the first universities,
and the flourishing of the love lyrics of the troubadours and the tales of Arthurian romance.
There is even the (now well established but initially paradoxical) notion of "the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance." This book, however, presents a different, and much darker, twelfth century.
Bisson, professor of medieval history emeritus at Harvard, is one of the leading historians
of the Middle Ages. His early work concentrated on Catalonia, a region with particularly rich
archival sources from this period; he has continually expanded both his geographical range and
the breadth of the historical questions he asks. In the 1990s he was a participant in a lively
debate on the so-called "Feudal Revolution," the theory that a transformation in the patterns
of power and authority took place in Europe in the decades around the year 1000. In those years
it was argued that older, official, and public structures of justice and administration were replaced
by new, more violent, and more localized forms, based on strongmen and their fortresses.
In his new book many of the elements of that "Feudal Revolution" recur, now extended to a later
period. Bisson's summary of developments in Catalonia in the years 1020 to 1060 presents such
a picture very clearly: there was "a terrifying collapse of public justice and the imposition
of a new order of coercive lordship over an intimidated peasantry." Moving on into the twelfth
century, the model is still recognizable: there is an "old passing world" ruled by a few nobles,
and a "burgeoning new world" of "vicious men," castle-lords and knights prepared to use violence
against the despised peasantry. This book is indeed an extended discussion of the issues arising
from that earlier debate. Bisson acknowledges that it is "not a systematic treatise, still less
a textbook," and those unfamiliar with the period may soon be lost. The book is an interpretation,
an individual assessment of European history of that period, one that takes a stand on a dozen
debated issues, often in implicit dialogue with other scholars. The main topics are lordship,
violence, and the state.
Lordship was a building block of most societies until relatively recently -- serfdom was abolished
in Russia only in 1861. Such societies were distinguished by extreme inequalities, made visible
by costume and gestures, like bowing and doffing of hats, and often supported by belief in hereditary
superiority and inferiority of blood. Collective groupings existed, but were not powerful, and
conflict and ambition were channeled more by vertical than horizontal solidarities: retainers,
servants, and other followers and dependants sought patronage from the great, not action alongside
their peers. At the highest level, lesser aristocrats became followers of great aristocrats, who
themselves would be competing for the ruler's favor. Costume dramas set in Tudor England, like
Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth, convey some of the flavor of such a world.
It was the prevalence of lordship that complicates any discussion of the medieval state. Bisson
repeatedly uses the far from standard formulations "lord-king," "lord-ruler," and even "lord-archbishop"
to convey the point that every ruler of this time was also a lord, a master of men, a patriarch
of some kind, possessing his position as inheritance or property, rather than (or as well as)
holding it as an office-indeed, he writes, "there is no sign that European people in the twelfth
century thought of lordship and office as contrasting categories."
Kings were lords, but also more than lords. Like the great barons, their power was patrimonial:
that is, inherited, dynastic, based on ideas of property we might call "private." A king's kingdom
was his in the same way that a baron's landed estates were his. Transmission of power was through
father-to-son inheritance, not by election. Hence marriages, births, and deaths were the great
punctuating points of medieval politics, not caucuses and ballots. Yet a king was also more than
just the greatest of the barons. Both the Church and a long secular tradition saw him as having
special duties as a ruler, duties that might be called "public."
This dualism of lordship and the state meant that medieval rulership had two distinct faces,
which were close to being opposites: on the one hand, the grand promises made at coronation by
kings and emperors, to ensure justice and the protection of the weak and the Church; on the other
hand, the reality of being a warlord trained in mounted warfare, a leader of proud, hard men,
used to wielding lethal edged weapons, and the center of a court full of envy, ambition, and suspicion.
Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was a militarized world: it was "an age of castles,"
when "those astride horses and bearing weapons routinely injured or intimidated people" -- although,
of course, they were still doing it in the thirteenth century, fourteenth century, fifteenth century,
and beyond. The Cossacks were still doing it in the twentieth century. This raises a problem.
In the absence of even a hint of dependable statistics, it is virtually impossible to weigh up
the relative violence of different periods and places of the past. We know all the difficulties
involved in dealing with modern crime figures; for the past we rarely have figures of any kind,
but must rely on stories told by chroniclers (often ecclesiastical) and interested parties (usually
plaintiffs). Historians read the laments, the individual accounts of plunder, murder, and rape,
and try to assess whether this was the way life was then, or whether it simply reflects a very
bad moment in that world. And while there can be little doubt that levels of violence were higher
in the medieval period than in modern Western peacetime societies, we, who live in the aftermath
of the worst genocidal atrocities in recorded history, should not make that claim with any complacency.
It is not difficult to gather stories of local violence and oppression from the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. But if we put these twelfth-century tales alongside those of the sixth-century
historian-bishop Gregory of Tours, whose History of the Franks reveals a world of monstrous cruelty,
we might wonder if things had really gotten much worse in the intervening six hundred years. On
one occasion, Gregory writes, a noble discovered that two of his serfs had married without his
consent: he supposedly said how delighted he was that they had at least not married serfs from
another lordship; he promised that he would not separate them, and then kept his word by having
them buried alive together. And was the twelfth century any more full of violence than, say, late
medieval France, a happy hunting ground for mercenaries and freebooters during the Hundred Years'
War?
The rulers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were trained in, and glorified, war, and expected
to live off it, as well as off the tribute of a subjugated peasantry. If such rulers formed "the
state" of their day, what are the implications? The state engages in violence; it takes away our
property. How then does it differ from a criminal enterprise? This was a question that went back
at least as far as Saint Augustine in the fourth century:
What are robber gangs, except little kingdoms? If their wickedness prospers, so that they set
up fixed abodes, occupy cities and subjugate whole populations, they then can take the name of
kingdom with impunity.
Augustine's ponderings stem from the worrying doubt that states and kingdoms, indeed all lawfully
constituted governments, are just the most successful of the robber gangs. This idea, that the
state and the criminal gang are but larger and smaller versions of the same thing, was one recurrent
strand in medieval thinking. In the words of Gregory VII, the reformist pope of the eleventh century:
Who does not know that kings and dukes had their origin in men who disregarded God and, with
blind desire and intolerable presumption, strove to dominate their equals, that is, other men,
through pride, plunder, perfidy, homicides, and every kind of crime, under the inspiration of
the lord of this world, the devil?
Westerns (like Sam Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) often explore the thin line between
the gunslinger and the sheriff, or the poignancy of the bandit turned law officer; and the thinness
of that line is clear in the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth century the kings of France, wishing
to concentrate their forces against the English, called upon their barons to curtail their own
feuds and vendettas: "We forbid anyone to wage war (guerre) during our war (guerre)." What the
king does and what the feuding nobles do is the same kind of thing-"war." Nowadays, we make a
sharper distinction. For instance, in the modern world, someone who takes our property away is
either a criminal or a tax collector. If the latter, then it is the state taking our property
away, and most people, of most political outlooks, distinguish the lawmakers from the lawbreakers.
Traditionally the state took away people's property in order to finance war. In Charles Tilly's
phrase, "the state made war and war made the state." The war-making, tax-raising state is indeed
the standard, familiar political unit of modern world history. If we go back in time, do we reach
a period when such an entity did not exist?
Bisson is not a scholar who throws the term "state" around freely. Indeed, the conceptual vocabulary
of his book is worth a mention. On the one hand, Bisson is happy to use the traditional but deeply
contested terms "feudal" and "feudalism," both of which even have entries in his glossary at the
end of the book. He can write of "a massive feudalizing of England by the Normans." Some historians
would do away with these concepts altogether. Even if some kinds of estates were called "fiefs"
(feoda), they argue, why should that fact lead us to a characterization of a whole society? Perhaps
a touch of self-questioning is visible in Bisson's embrace of the terminology: "'Feudal monarchy':
is this the right concept?" he asks.
In contrast to his acceptance of this traditional terminology, Bisson has a marked tendency to
use large conceptual terms with a peculiar, even personal, connotation. "Political" is an example.
The bishops of this period, he says, "vied with one another for visible precedence," yet such
struggles "were not political disputes; they were concerned with status, not process." A footnote
refers us to an infamous incident when the archbishop of York, noticing that the archbishop of
Canterbury had a seat higher than his, kicked it over and refused to be seated until he had a
seat as high. Now, one might reasonably class this as a nursery tantrum, but why should not a
public dispute over precedence count as "political"?
This wariness about the term "political" (usually in scare quotes in the book) is based on the
idea that lordship "was personal, affective, and unpolitical in nature." Might it not be clearer
to say that the politics of that time was not the same as the politics of ours? It may be that
we have here an example of a recurrent dilemma, either to say that the power relations of long
ago are not politics at all, or to say that they are, but that we must differentiate between medieval
and modern politics. Similarly, we may say that the superior authorities of that time cannot be
called states at all; or we can argue that they were, but that we must distinguish medieval and
modern states.
One of the most important examples of Bisson's idiosyncratic use of general terms is his treatment
of the word "government." He is reluctant even to apply the term to Norman England. "Royal lordship"
was not the same thing as "government." Sometimes government is completely absent. Late-twelfth-century
Europe was "an ungoverned society," although there were also "proto-governments" at this time;
by the mid-thirteenth century "something like government hovered." This unwillingness to see the
rulers of the central Middle Ages as constituting "governments" is to be explained partly because,
in Bisson's view, the people of that time lacked any understanding of the state as distinct from
lordship, but also because there are certain criteria for government, as distinct from lordship,
that the rulers did not meet. He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social
purpose.
"Accountability" is an important term in Bisson's historical vocabulary. Sometimes it means
quite literally the rendering of financial accounts, like the Catalan fiscal records which Bisson
himself has edited. He emphasizes the birth, in the twelfth century, of "a newly searching and
flexible accountability," as simple surveys of resources and fixed revenues, which can be found
from early in the Middle Ages, were supplemented by balance sheets of incoming and outgoing assets.
The English Pipe Rolls, annual audits of income and expenditures of the royal sheriffs, are a
classic example. The English Dialogue of the Exchequer of 1178, or thereabouts, reveals a department
of government that is professional, with its own technical expertise, and (in the Dialogue) its
own handbook or manual. Slightly later, in 1202, there appears what has been called "the first
budget of the French monarchy."
But Bisson also uses the word in a broader sense: accountability means official responsibility,
answerability. He associates it with the idea of office. Record-keeping is in fact one test of
official status. And true government is "the exercise of power for social purpose," "social purpose"
perhaps to be glossed here as "the common good." It is the emergence of "official conduct aimed
at social purpose," linked, interestingly, with the rise of public taxation, that, for Bisson,
signals the shift of the balance from lordship to government in the thirteenth century.
However, the chronology of state formation in the Middle Ages is a disputed issue. Some historians
talk as if there were a stateless period at some point in the central Middle Ages. Others hold
the view that, to take one notable example, the kingdom of England of the year 1000 was not only
a state but a strong, centralized, and pervasive state. If taxation and a standardized coinage
are, in Bisson's words, parts of "a new model of associative power" around the year 1200, then
the uniform land tax and centralized currency of eleventh-century England show that that model
already existed in some places two hundred years earlier.
What cannot be disputed is that over the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries,
the state became increasingly bureaucratic. The documents produced by the English government in
the eleventh century could be placed on one large table (even given that monumental oddity, Domesday
Book, the extensive survey of land ownership made in 1086 under William the Conqueror). The documents
produced by the English government in the thirteenth century fill whole rooms and could never
be read in one person's lifetime. Written records supplemented or replaced older oral forms of
information gathering, testimony, or command (Michael Clanchy's 1979 masterpiece, From Memory
to Written Record, analyzes this development for precociously bureaucratic England in the Norman
and Plantagenet period). But more bureaucratic government does not necessarily mean less violent,
or even less arbitrary, government.
Historians like bureaucracy, because it feeds their hunger for written sources, the raw material
with which they work; but the bond between historians and government is deeper than that. The
historical profession grew up in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in close symbiosis
with government. Not only was the heart of historical study usually the archives produced by past
governments, but many of the students and teachers in those generations, the first to study history
as a discipline, entered government service. Charles Homer Haskins, the founding father of American
medieval scholarship, was an adviser to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
He was also the teacher of Joseph Strayer, himself the teacher of Bisson. Such academic genealogies
can be overplayed, but there is no doubt that all three great medievalists, Haskins, Strayer,
and Bisson, demonstrate a deep-rooted concern with the techniques and records of administration,
with the procedures of the bureaucrats and officials. Strayer was as familiar with the modern
as with the medieval version, since he worked for the CIA One of his most vigorous pieces of
work is entitled On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970; one might notice the emphasis
on both the "origins" and the "modern"; we live in the modern state; its origins go back a long
way, but the state of those days was not the state of ours). The book contains Strayer's cogent
definition of feudalism as "public powers in private hands," with that confident assurance that
these adjectives, "public" and "private," convey a simple and evident distinction that will arouse
no intellectual discomfort in readers. By contrast, Bisson's book is generated in part by his
wrestling with such concepts and their implications.
Bisson's book is called The Crisis of the Twelfth Century. "Crisis" means a vitally important
or decisive stage in the progress of anything. But in that sense, any century of human history
is a crisis. One might even say that this is simply the condition of human life-we are always
in an Age of Crisis (although the situation might not always be as alarming as today's). Bisson
acknowledges that "'crisis' was not a common word in the verbiage of the day," and the one instance
he cites of the contemporary use of the word (in its Latin form discrimen) refers to a succession
crisis in Poland in 1180. He wishes to see the various distinct political crises he discusses
(such as the Saxon revolt of 1075, the communal insurrection in Laon in 1111, the "anarchy" of
King Stephen's reign) as part of "the same wider crisis of multiplied knights and castles."
However, a case can be made that the levels of violence and disorder in this period were largely
dictated by the patterns of high politics rather than by a deep-seated structural malaise. Disputed
successions, or the accession of a child-king, could indeed upset the world of knights and castles,
unleashing the strongmen and their castle-based predatory attacks. Yet a regime of knights and
castles could also form the basis for fairly stable feudal monarchies, such as one sees in France
and England for most of the thirteenth century. If this is so, there were, of course, crises in
the twelfth century, but no Crisis.
The violence and greed of European knights of this period were directed beyond the local victims.
Bisson's "long twelfth century" was not only an age of predatory lords in their castles bullying
their peasantry but also an age of expansionary, one could say colonialist, violence. Christian
armies, led by these predatory lords, crossed into Muslim lands, capturing Toledo in 1085, Jerusalem
in 1099, and landing in North Africa in 1148; they destroyed the last remnants of West Slav paganism
in the Baltic in 1168; they even turned their formidable fighting strength against their estranged
Christian cousins in the Greek East, and sacked Constantinople in 1204. The energies generated
in the conflicts between mounted men in the West, and the expertise they acquired in subjugating
and fleecing the local peasantry, could be exported. The story of European violence is far from
unique, but it was in the central Middle Ages that it took a form that shaped the subsequent history
of the world.
A traditional view of the development of European society in the central Middle Ages, a view
to be found in textbooks past and present, is that the empire of Charlemagne (747–814) and his
successors had important elements of public authority, in the form of officials with delegated
powers and courts open to all free men, but that this regime was replaced, around the year 1000,
with a heavily militarized and violent world of strongmen in castles, lording it over peasants.
Over the course of time this world was, in its turn, transformed by the persistent efforts of
the kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into a network of more centralized and bureaucratic
states, which led ultimately to modern systems of government. Like every model at this level of
generality, as long as people who know something about the subject have created it, there must
be some truth in this picture, however little it can be the whole truth. But we might have questions.
Was the "old public order" of Charlemagne and his successors so public and so ordered? Was the
subsequent regime so close to anarchy?
Bisson adds to this traditional account by thinking deeply about the benefits and disadvantages
of government. He is very aware of the inhumanity of the past he studies. He refers, with allusion
to the words of the twelfth-century cleric John of Salisbury, to "hunter-lords." John was talking
about the way that aristocrats were obsessed with the chase, but we might apply his phrase in
a wider sense. Since some theorists believe that human society is imprinted with its origins in
hunting packs and the mentality of the pack, the predatory lordship of the central Middle Ages
could be conceived of as just such a hunting pack-but its prey being fellow human beings, rather
than beasts.
Confronting this world of hunter and hunted, Bisson is inspired by attractively humane impulses.
In an earlier book, Tormented Voices, a microhistorical analysis of complaints raised by Catalan
peasants in the twelfth century, he stated explicitly that he was attempting "an essay in compassionate
history." Likewise in this book. And he looks for public, accountable, official remedies for suffering
and oppression. He seems sympathetic to the idea that "power is rightly oriented towards the social
needs of people." "If ever government was the solution, not the problem," he writes, "it was so
for European peoples in the twelfth century." Is the modern world so happy in its governments?
Whether we should endure the violence of the state, as a defense against the yet more fearful
violence of our neighbors, and whether there comes a point where the violence of the state must
be resisted are great recurrent questions of moral and political life. The questions raised by
Bisson's book remain open.
@4 psychohistorian.. and i agree with you in that too.. it has to do with the packaging and a
tendency in people to identify with the packaging - in this example 'made in the usa' as some
sort of rationale for that social sickness many suffer from called 'patriotism'.. it seems to
be especially prevalent in the worst nations, the usa at this point in time being the focal point
for much of this marketing...
@ okie farmer who added a loooong comment that contained the following about the definition of
government:
"
He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social purpose.
"
The narrative provided did not get into a discussion of "social purpose" but I think that it
is an important concept. The example I would posit is the original humanistic motto of the US,
E Pluribus Unum which was instantiated by government creations of the time like the pony express....true
socialism, if you need an ism to cling to. Social Security INSURANCE is another example of an
instantiation of social purpose.
The original US motto was replaced by In God We Trust in the mid 1950's which, IMO, destroyed
the social purpose concept of government and instead tells you to trust the leaders and religious
institutions.....reversion to kings and feudalism.
You get the government you demand. What sort of world do you want to pass to the children?
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition
to the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push
to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress
is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."
Stiglitz, an economics professor at
Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute,
made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."
His criticism comes as Obama aggressively
campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even
as
resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.
Echoing an
argument made by Center for Economic
and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck
session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."
Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may,
in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that
are not in the national interest," he said.
Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate
interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned
"the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and
"the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and
actually harm trade."
"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone,"
he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."
Stiglitz has also been advising the
Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part,
supported the deal before coming out
against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially
since she recently
named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement
advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition
team.
Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where
union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts
on working families.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after
this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World,
"If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."
We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments
are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically
massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign
corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create
more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with
lower labor costs and standards.
Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers,
and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May
(https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf)
confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP
would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas,
and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for
the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply
flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.
There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving
American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated
in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such
enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.
"... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
"... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
"... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
"... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal
universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."
Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments
for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special
"corporate
courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super
courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries
and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.
Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his
cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things
that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to
the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just
seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect
investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where
the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.
Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers"
and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and
fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all
about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote"
democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their
more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory
system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they
have "earned."
To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic"
from which they need special protection.
"Trade" Deals Bypass Borders
Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders
of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate
global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs
a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's
own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national
strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with
the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.
Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering
Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand
these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement
is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called
the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Secrets of a Global Super Court
BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts,
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement
(ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world
economy. These provisions set up "corporate
courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments
and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries
in the "trade" deals.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned
that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's
laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive,
and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere
in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."
[. . .]
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during
the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the
company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal
activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation,
bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.
Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of
financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused
of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi,
and the Russian oligarch known as "the
Kremlin's banker."
One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence
of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition
that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said,
"You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit
the jackpot."
Part Two,
"The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations
that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed
just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."
Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the
threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those
courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually
bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.
[. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators
can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands,
however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially
for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their
people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers
alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers,
meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national
budgets and shake economies to the core.
Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business:
prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over
huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.
The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries
never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances,
would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or
that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.
ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase
outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes
that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international
showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian
company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the
bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand
over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million.
Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."
But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized
assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money
by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to
foot the bill.
Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased
companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the
sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up
shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases.
And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third
parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his
lawsuit against Gawker Media.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement
on the ISDS provisions in TPP:
"Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to
sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation
and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage.
We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And
we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.
"It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition
to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting
political harm to Democrats with voters."
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:
1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."
"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November
- means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows
it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress
from November 9 to January 3."
To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency
hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless
we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how
much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as
the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering
if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade
surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).
Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get
this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:
In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have
trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility
would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations
have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the
U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant
political capital.
On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long,
and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this
point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would
make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians
who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss
of status and to further opposition.
However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations
were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise
making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body,
and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded
to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public,
not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress
itself.
Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not
"our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words
of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that
they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was
not.
What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is
on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals
fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that
a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of
us will make good.
When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the
terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed
our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national
sovreignity, there is no contest.
Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy,
our nation, does.
"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on
the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail
what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful
of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make
good."
Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten,
piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished
and unfinished.
I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count
on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad!
Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct
these absurd schemes like ISDS.
sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine
to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation
on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits
with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices
at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a
pissed off public. jmo tho')
LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In
the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had
two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet
as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon
of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the
hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious
and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.
Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry
lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate,
and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening
night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.
My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since
he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.
"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in
the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious
behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama
established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has
been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
Obama did back down.
NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through
bombing Syria.
Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's
benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation
of countries
We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national
defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is
a
surrender of national sovereignty .
National Defense
This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that
Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention
of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that
this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next
generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed
that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into
products intended for the jet" (
Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need
to bring a lot of manufacturing home.
From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :
In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable
report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats
to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of
domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living
standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new
players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on
it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents
a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise
of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."
Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the
supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural
disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices
in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting
on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise
prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.
The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.
And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this
kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.
So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek
to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism,
through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry
at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing
America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds;
and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that
neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course,
this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct
fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the
restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor.
She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")
ISDS
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent
a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers
who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases).
Yves wrote :
What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed
joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version
of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the
worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process
(ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism
strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration
panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign
investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret
arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden
and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.
Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very
thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization
makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits"
doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to
put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal
doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors.
To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because
TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.
The Political State of Play
All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation.
That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session,
by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by
Trump[1]).
[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles,
there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it
won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually
sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit
down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would
enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.
I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers
and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to
get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow
we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect
to the actual agreement.
So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political
reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the
necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives
who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be
in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election
on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the
last three elections was about 80.
Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can
pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org,
we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists.
(An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).
So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as
unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal
cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass
this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time
that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without
any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate
can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.
(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate
with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow.
And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means!
- there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text,
so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])
Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become,
it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. (
Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent
impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However,
if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to
treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or,
if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes
a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)
Passing TPP after the Inaugural
After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more
complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives
leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP
is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton
administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that
she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions
with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative
Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion
of not hurting workers even better:
Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans
lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple
it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with
substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton
gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets
through.
What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout
as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's
critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change
needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits
the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure
that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal.
Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support
to get it through Congress.
Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let
alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly,
although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives,
she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least
be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs,"
even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in
intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed (
her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to
pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new
jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal
of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions,
bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity
and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote
against the United States.
Conclusion
I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both
Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable
hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing
a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that
frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes
from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published
tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what
we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty.
Here's
a great slab of it :
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend
countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution.
Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole
country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its
rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful
way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant
public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions
secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting
in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves
as "The Club" or "The Mafia."
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing
- and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a
trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions,
such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments
of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office
buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state
dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties
that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
That's the stuff to give the troops!
NOTE
[1] Trump:
"I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta
wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't
think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there
are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just
looking at
Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which
the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because
I don't think we have any data to go on.
To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will
have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even
if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be
amended.
He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific
issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond
what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification
that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.
This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits
to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to
get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown
to Congress members that their objectives have been met.
In other words, side deals.
[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption
going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive
free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks
that have lasted three years not a single common item out of
the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has
refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies
in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".
The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too
friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it
could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for
taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies
might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment
regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes
between investors and states.
In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and
activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million
people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various
trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across
Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also
come under attack.
These developments take place against the background of another major
free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances
are really slim.
silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM
"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major
setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.
"... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
"... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels
between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe
the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global
political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in
populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote
on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and
oddsmakers wrong as well.
This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who
have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never
staid campaign rallies.
The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.
Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the
UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking
forward to Farage's speech.
The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as
"CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically
advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.
Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out
and fight" against Hillary Clinton.
"I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the
parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks
time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change
they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved
it."
"I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee.
"It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is
that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics
that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."
"... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
"... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
"... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
"... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western
Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest
rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured
billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated
its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?
The following two
graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.
Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries
with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations,
like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its
currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax
treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly
rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.
Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle
rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free
to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs
bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable
piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.
Next: China's export machine sputters.
China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes
a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash.
CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate
capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt
cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer
well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade
was on its last legs.
So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model
based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once
but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market
continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization
had run its course.
And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short
term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures.
No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing
that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.
The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed.
Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely
a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor
is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign
firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first
world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with
excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect
its environment?
Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle
has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.
The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage,
tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the
"race to the bottom," see
here.
Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)–
carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing
is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply
has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and
maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.
Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their
wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge:
A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.
Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time,
newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service.
Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.
But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but
surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock
the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one
major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.
But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create
the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.
Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed
occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been
seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?
Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!
Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA
serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of
those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations?
Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to
travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?
jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.
If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!
Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?
failing to organize,
failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans
and policies,
failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work
Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..
I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs
allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am
Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection,
and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting
is no better.
Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am
Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending
publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:
A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most
should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!
TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am
"Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America
the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians
and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations
than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking
around the results tell me that.
TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm
The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility).
I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!
Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm
Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported
on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between
the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization"
of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far
more with their sources in power than with their readers.
There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure
the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any
significant change.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
"... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
"... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State
(IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which
were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the
war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.
The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the
Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.
The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He
told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that
disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification
."
" That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards
we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.
Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.
" It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional
core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it
has shown in conducting its operations. "
The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were
increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of
Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.
A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of
suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian
campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared
the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "
Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army
disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.
The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "
" Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq
into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.
" We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant
impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo
of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.
Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in
the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.
" They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in
many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common
cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "
The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which
by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological
and economic drivers to resist the occupation.
" Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others
are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.
The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle
between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.
They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time,
foreign fighters.
" We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership
retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.
" Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort
stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.
Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office
memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces
will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion.
"
AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul
No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same
conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite
in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy
officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would
kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what
would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out
of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating
them different, does that ring any bells. ?
AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans
for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the
most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because
of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because
it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to
more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
Linx 7 Jul
Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD.
Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did
not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen.
Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this
video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified
memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military
without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before
another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control
of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
Orange Tag 7 Jul
What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake
up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop
the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors
of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates
you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia
instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the
total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's
happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
Malcolm stark 7 Jul
Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say
Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own
government.
CyanDog 7 Jul
Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our
beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for
Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional
mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries
the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should
keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt
on either side.
"... ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks! ..."
"... I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land. ..."
"... I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. ..."
"... I was able to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud. ..."
We have been saying that for years that Isis was created and funded by the US ( Obama) he should
have been impeached years ago and to this day he needs to impeached and locked up for life for
all the lives he has killed and for all the crooked deals he has done behind our backs! He is
not even a citizen of the US! Please God help us all!
ISIS is al-Qaeda re-branded and is supported by Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf
States and the Western military alliance. Obama didn't technically 'create' them. Nor did he do
anything to stop them. When ISIS first emerged, the US State Department said they were caught
completely "flat -footed". ISIS emerged like a mirage in the Iraq desert, fully equipped, fully
armed and driving a convoy of matching Toyota trucks!
We all know why Hillary and Obama get away with literally murder and treason. The reason is that
it is leverage over them by their puppet masters to ensure they stay on course with the New World
Order agenda. When it is feared that they are getting a bit off script leaks occur of their heinous
crimes and they get back on script. Both of these pathetic scum bags know what awaits them if
they turn away from their puppet master's wishes. At the least prison for life and the worse is
death in so many possible ways that it would be a replay of Kennedy with different patsies. This
is why Hillary has a Cheshire cat grin and Obama plays more golf than any other president. They
know they have a get out of jail free pass.
I would like to say that Obama and Hillary Clinton were too weak or complacent to stop the
Neoconservatives/Zionists/Establishment from creating ISIS. It was their way of toppling the regime
of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and helping Israel to tighten the grip over stolen land.
I would like to say watch the "Yuri Bezmenov" interviews, and realize there is no difference
between the democrats and establishment GOP, they are the same thing. The cancer of the democrat
party bled into the GOP, hence the establishment, and organ of the democrat party. I was able
to see through GW Bush, other establishment RINOs, and was honest enough to see the fraud.
I used my intellect, my brains, to see what was going on, and left the republican party many
years ago. YOU are still defending the democrat party, Obama, and Hillary. Pathetic.
"... RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range. ..."
"... "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor. ..."
"... "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added. ..."
RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential
scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would
be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the
$60 dollar range.
The worst case scenario involves a tsunami of new production from OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Libya hitting the market -- all but certain to drive prices even lower. On Thursday, the final day
of trading before the Christmas holiday, Brent and U.S. crude closed up by more than a percent,
but still well under $40 per barrel.
"If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's
a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor.
... ... ....
"Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she
said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels.
The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she
added.
Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use
two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately
the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such
campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only
thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force
commanded by those elites."
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
"... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
"... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed
from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms
of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?
So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other
potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in
the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.
lutesongs
Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values
and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable
future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't
allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal
another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming
the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote
counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the
one.
BabyLyon
The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the
limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful
solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
PhilippeOrlando
This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year
it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates
who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will
cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason
'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for
whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them
won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous
even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from
bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have
little chance of achieving it.
patimac54
Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in
the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and
is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most
impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most
will not have experienced previously.
If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may
open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
amorezu
A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here
have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with
living in a de-facto oligarchy.
Observer453
Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and
cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama
recently described himself.
Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls
himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me
up.
jdanforth
Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running
for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of
the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs
are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into
the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party,
either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.
1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry
Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis
Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate
is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place
of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...
Doro Wynant jdanforth
Except:
1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the
duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to
work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.
2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same
category.
3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional
persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the
formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality
-- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.
4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence
in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable
society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that
these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas.
Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?
Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!
Jon Phillips
If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you
explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?
300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........
RickyRat
This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either
his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you
can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further
the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!
Bertmax RickyRat
That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame.
Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation
that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting
only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country.
People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.
A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among
the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?
He's probably doing much better among real people.
RickyRat Chris Plante
There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
Jeannie Parker
I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's
been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB
and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign
are coming from across the political spectrum.
The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.
No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.
Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.
No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to
the highest office of our Land. Cheers.
But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their
capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Notable quotes:
"... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
"... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
"... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
"... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
"... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs,
affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so
no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the
background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief
that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative
Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.
Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly,
that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral
business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly
swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians
lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even
their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British
voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island.
The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well
as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future
of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms
(and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that
migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy
and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.
... ... ...
After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American
presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians
in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most
mountains are hard or impossible to move.
In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now
multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British
government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments'
ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to
the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.
Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated
coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to
reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted
in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.
The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated
the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly
enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing
the full range of EU law within the UK.
Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their
long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process
or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many
so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.
On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly
capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale
force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely
beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling
is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated
that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good
or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.
The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders
are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small.
No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.
ItsJustTim
That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly
international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need
a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European
government for European issues elected by all Europeans.
"... The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources, responsibility without power, power without structure. ..."
"... "See-Judge-Act" ..."
"... resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising and very powerful status quo. ..."
"... And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at least, is to close them down! ..."
Mar 07, 2015 | Diocese of Liverpool
Introduction: When is an economy not an economy? When it's a caravan park!
Sources – Chicago School of Economics (Friedman and Hayek) – also German „ordoliberalism‟.
First use of the word probably Freidman – 1951 essay Neoliberalism and its Prospects.
They DIFFERED but the development of their views has become the economic status quo since
the 1980s – „TINA‟ – „there is no alternative.‟
Ironic – from the 1930s to the 1950s, its theorists were dismissed by mainstream economic
thinking as cranks and mavericks
How did it get to be so influential? Interesting – one analysis - „rugby match‟ analysis –
„the think tanks passed to the journalists, who passed to the politicians, who with aid from the
think tanks run with it and score.‟
You won‟t see the term much – although the Guardian uses it! – you might see „free market,‟
or "competition" – but even if we don‟t know the term, neo-liberalism has become so much the norm
we don‟t even notice it – David Harvey: „Neo-liberalism has become incorporated into the common
sense way many of us live in, interpret and understand the world.‟ (A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism,
p 3)
But it isn‟t inevitable, natural or constructed – and many projects of practical compassion
in parishes are in response to its direct results.
So the first thing is to detach from it and NOTICE it – name the beast!
So What is It? Several key elements to what Neoliberalism is:
It affirms, above all else, the rule of the market1 - that means the unrestricted movement
of capital, goods and services.
The market is „self-regulating‟ in terms of the distribution of wealth– more wealth in the
system is supposed to equal more wealth for all – wealth distribution falls out of the system,
and in theory, there is a „trickle down‟ of wealth distribution.
The de-regulation of labour - e.g., de-unionization of labour forces, and end to wage controls.
The removal of any impediment to the moving of capital – such as regulations.
Reducing public expenditure – and in particular for utilities, common goods (water), and social
services, such as transport, health and education, by the government
Privatization of the above – of everything from water to the Internet
Increasing deregulation of the market, and allowing market forces to regulate themselves.
Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility.
Behind these features are a series of underlying assumed principles – an ideology of neo-liberalism:
2
Sustained economic growth is good in itself and the best way to human progress
Free markets would be the most efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources
Globalization is a good thing – beneficial to everyone
Privatization removes the inefficiencies of the public sector.
Governments‟ main functions should be to provide the infra structure to advance the rule of
law with respect to property rights and contracts and to ensure the market remains competitive.
So What's Wrong with it?
It is internally contradictory
There is no such thing as a free market
Even the original neoliberals recognise this – competition regulates the market – there
is no one view of what "competitive" is
The ordoliberals certainly recognise it – role of government to create the perfectly
competitive market
The view taken of competition based on price tends to monopolies, a "race to the bottom,"
and uniformity (Amazon, Sky, Apple )
Its effects are not as the theory predicted, and have often been damaging:
There has been no "trickle down" effect of wealth (in fact, wealth has redistributed upwards)
It has entailed much "creative destruction" of institutional frameworks and powers, divisions
of labour social relations, attachments to the land and habits of the heart.‟ (David Harvey,
Short History of Neo-Liberalism, p 3)
It has pushed, and is pushing, the reach of the market into ever more spheres of human
life, „the saturation of the state, political culture and the social with market rationality.‟
(Wendy Brown: American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and De-Democratization
(Political Theory 34 (2006), p 695)
It has a view of human beings as 'specks of human capital,' who can be 'plugged in'
to markets of various kinds, (or who plug themselves in)
the hero of neoliberalism is the entrepreneur – we are all becoming more and more required
to be „entrepreneurs of the self‟ – to invest in ourselves/make something of ourselves, „cultivate
and care for‟ ourselves and, increasingly – measure our performance.
The caravan park analogy –we are required to „plug ourselves in‟ – to pay the price of
doing so, and to accept the cost.
Our „belonging‟ becomes passive plugging in – rather than active participation.
Traditional forms of solidarity are wiped out.
Specks of human capital are eminently sacrificable, even if they have done all the „right
things‟ – there are no guarantees, and individuals are expected to bear the risk of their entrepreneurial
activity themselves (investing many hours in „training‟ and „upskilling,‟ often with no financial
or institutional support and with no guarantee of better employment practices – i.e. gain (more
skilled workforce) is privatized and risk is distributed downwards, labour is bound and capital
released.
Austerity politics is the natural outcome of this – people are told virtue is sacrifice
for the sake of a productive economy, but with no protection.
Despite opposition to „big government,‟ isolated and vulnerable individuals are eminently
governable, subject to new forms of power whilst having smaller and
smaller spaces in which to resist it. People are easily integrated into a project that
is quite prepared to sacrifice them.
So why is it bad for all of us?
It has redistributed wealth – upwards. Most extreme effects seen amongst the most vulnerable
– but many people are feeling the pinch in the middle. Cultural expression of neoliberalism encourages
those in the middle to „aspire‟ upwards – and demonises the most vulnerable. Not good for the
soul, even of those relatively comfortable!
An economy is not a caravan park that we plug into but a household (oeconomia) that we belong
to – with solidarities and mutuality built in – some of them unchosen. Neoliberalism cuts us off
from belonging in a way that allows us to flourish.
Its promotion of economic growth as the only good inevitably means economies built on debt
and austerity
To see people as sacrificeable specks of human capital means they are governable, isolated
and vulnerable – and the isolation and vulnerability is spreading upwards in society too (it takes
on average a year after graduation for a graduate from a "good" university to get a job)
The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale
problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without
the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources,
responsibility without power, power without structure.
Dependency is denigrated and independence moralized – the most vulnerable are burdened morally
with failing to follow the correct processes of capital development
Lack of trust erodes community life and social relations
Physical and mental health are affected – and not just for those who are poorest, but for
those in the middle and even those at the top (see Richard Wilson and Kate Pickett:
The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody – London, Penguin 2009)
Education becomes narrow and instrumental
In some ways, those in the deepest peril are those who benefit from neoliberalism – „for what
will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their soul‟ (Matthew 16.26)
So what is to be done?
"See-Judge-Act"
SEE - We first need to SEE it – to name the beast - that the issues we confront daily
in parishes, in our everyday lives, and in the news do not arise by accident or as a result of
unfortunate circumstances, or the distorting lens of the media – but from the systematic application
of a particular, and very far-reaching economic theory.
JUDGE means unpicking the assumptions, watching how the ball curves; it means not just
coming up with concrete examples from our own circumstances, but relating them to the „macro‟
level – seeing how they result from larger structures and assumptions
JUDGE also means reflecting theologically on all this in the light of scripture and
tradition.
ACT – is harder – so what is to be done? It can seem impossible to do anything!
However – the very act of noticing is important. Neoliberalism‟s power derives partly from
its invisibility – we need to notice that it is happening. Various forms of
resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they
have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising
and very powerful status quo.
We can – and should – continue to be involved in projects of practical compassion – and alongside
doing them, make connections with the bigger picture.
We can recognise our own complicity in neoliberalism – and disassociate from it, at least
with our heads.
We can ask critical questions whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no
space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action
of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at
least, is to close them down!
Justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect
of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness quietness and trust forever. My people
will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, in quite resting places. (Isaiah 32.16-18)
Further Reading:
Zygmunt Bauman: Liquid Modernity (Cambridge, Polity Press 2000)
Ha-Joon Chang: 23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism (London, Penguin 2011)
An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not
much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump
are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
"... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
"... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
"... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
"... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
"... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway
marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all
its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which
has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.
As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy,
debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this
"taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial
analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never
the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the
case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.
I wrote about this subject under the title,
Nuclear Israel
, back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the
subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has
been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea
now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering.
But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept,
though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And
not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier
by Ira Chernus on a
graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and
still viewable
).
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy
in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which
has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels
of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective,
and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well
as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited
to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support
for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was
emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium,
generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues
for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom
Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...
By Ray McGovern
"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'
"(Short pause)
"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'
"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"
For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's
ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration
would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective
includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime
change."
But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men
-- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies."
I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.
According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency
, former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies"
sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary
Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during
a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell
was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval.
Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for
him.
If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage
in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful
foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.
It Can Get Worse
"The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure
their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years
ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like
a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system,
and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that
they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy,
which leap from papers they put out at the
Project for the New American Century
over recent years.
The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing
on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich
Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream
church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful
air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly
causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.
But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress
that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer,
according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction
and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental
problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.
Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may
have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear
club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it
is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud.
One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure
that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they
will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.
What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about
a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who
welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this
evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates"
within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras
caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates,"
former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created
position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.
George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"
During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security
adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies"
at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept
well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.
Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up
considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance,
became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto
dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed
deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain
military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with
those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?
Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to
the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either
to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations
of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of
"the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method
to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always
overreach and fall.
The Return of the Neocons
In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking
positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of
lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of
Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once
occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs.
From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old
colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director
of national intelligence.
Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too
concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They
are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous
policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.
Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the
earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not
surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down
as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any
case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a
carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined
to spend it, sooner rather than later.
Next Stop, Iran
When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend
of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally)
on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground
level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier
training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing
of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring
of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the
father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son
said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."
Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.
Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric
and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air
attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the
New Yorker reports
of Seymour Hersh to
Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well
as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February
18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before
the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president
has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear
weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an
automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness
about this option.
So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the
troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we
do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."
Why Would Iran Want Nukes?
So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago.
Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well,
you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.
Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there,
Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."
Is alleged to
have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that
Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear
weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every
now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)
Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder
our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them
-- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is
standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts.
And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.
If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security
threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel
(with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor
at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and
vice president can be
read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major
General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air
strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."
US-Israel Nexus
The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology.
Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s,
Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American
officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability
is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can
be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North
Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring
the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to
hit Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support
for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed,
American
defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the
issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could
have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency
estimate mentioned above.
In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses"
-- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda.
It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy
Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle
East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government
during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic
interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.
As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for
the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who,
as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As
Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed
at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also
saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis
already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.
When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil
To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to
1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad
Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah
in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled
from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like
a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their
own.
Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided
to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support
for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial
factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush
administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq.
Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this
administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence
what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years
to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well,
once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far
deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Is the Nub
The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches
to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would
answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me,
because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.
On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel
has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable
calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably
say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans,
who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"
The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world
and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance.
A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely
to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?
A Nuclear-Free Middle East
How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral
clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the
Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such
a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers.
Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all
virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable
charges of anti-Semitism.
The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion
cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the
Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived
threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians,
for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal,
they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant
aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders.
That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.
That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach
would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial
about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears
among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly,
attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do
to alleviate their concerns.
Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village
drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear
weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty
moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out
of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.
Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence
Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years
the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons?
The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative
nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving
of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's
policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly
such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic
threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability,
there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after
all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.
It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may
seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government
appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance"
it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that
could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area.
Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would
be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through
-- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course
for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take
that line. Rather
"Israel Is Our Ally."
Or so
said
our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty
of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?
Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing
support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence
of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our
policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that
we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author
of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight
the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."
An earlier American warned:
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where
no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the
former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote
themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )
In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up
with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing
this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or
distorted in our domesticated media.
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John
F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors
of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers.
He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues
founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
"... Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". ..."
"... Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her. ..."
"... See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere! ..."
"... I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press ..."
"... In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses. ..."
"... Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. ..."
"... The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC. ..."
"... Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult. ..."
"... Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria. ..."
"... As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding. ..."
"... who had already reached Hungary ..."
"... on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further. ..."
"... she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision. ..."
"... Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore ..."
"... EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already! ..."
"... I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy. ..."
"... Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). ..."
"... The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West. ..."
"... Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either. ..."
By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin
The inexorable political decline of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as her traditional
opponents, the Social Democrats, is gathering pace. Upcoming elections in three German federal states
on 13 March have given this process a considerable fillip. Both Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic
Party and the Social Democrats are expecting some harrowing results.
It seems that each new crisis that Ms Merkel creates is more formidable than its predecessor.
Her mishandling of the refugee question – nationally and internationally – is making her conflict
with Greece last year appear like a festival of love and unity.
... ... ...
For the Social Democrats under the leadership of Sigmar Gabriel, who seems more concerned with
lining up some well remunerated jobs in advance of his retirement from politics, there is a bleak
future. Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets
while you can". Following the debacles of the social democrats in Spain and their compatriots
in the Republic of Ireland, who appear to have gone into a death spin, the German social democrats
seem to be following in their footsteps. The party will probably struggle to receive 20 percent of
the vote at the next national election in a year's time.
Domestically Ms Merkel's party and the Social Democrats have tried to save themselves by changing
the German laws regarding refugees. Nations that were until recently considered warzones or systematically
violating human rights have been declared "safe countries of origin", making refugees from these
countries "economic migrants" to facilitate fast track extradition. Benefits for refugees are being
slashed, as well not permitting refugees to bring their families to join them in Germany.
The situation became palpably absurd, as Ms Merkel declared that refugees have to integrate themselves
in German society or leave, only then to declare that she expects them to depart as soon as the conflicts
in their nations have terminated.
Ms Merkel's real hope is purchasing the acquiescence of Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
to stop all refugees at his own border, thus relocating the source of the current political conflict
out of Europe and into Turkey. Erdoğan, who is fighting a war against the Kurds, would appreciate
the billions of Euros on offer, as well as the EU members of NATO turning a blind eye to his pact
with ISIS. Let us have no illusions: Erdoğan is an anti-democratic and authoritarian, with nor respect
for human rights. He is on the threshold of becoming a dictator. He knows he has all the political
trumps in his hand in negotiations with Ms Merkel and will exact a commensurate price. This is only
the most recent juncture in a political disaster that spiralled out of control months ago.
Add to this the newly created mission of NATO using a fleet of warships to stop the flow of refugees
from Turkey to Greece, while negotiations continue with Erdoğan. It is cynically claimed that the
NATO force is there to arrest those smuggling the refugees. This is absurd. As everyone knows, the
smugglers put the refugees in dilapidated boats and send them off on their own. They are not cruise
operators. Thus the NATO ships are in effect sending back refugees, many of them women and children,
to Turkey. Is this what NATO was created for? Where were the NATO ships, as thousands of refugees
were drowning in the Mediterranean?
The whole affair, as with Greece before it, has become a disgrace for Europe. I doubt it would
surprise anyone, should negotiations with Turkey fail, and Ms Merkel announced that her government
was in talks with ISIS to assist in stemming the refugee threat to European Civilisation.
German leaders are infallible, so there is no way back for Ms Merkel, although there is not much
backtracking left to do. The upcoming elections in Germany could well decide her political fate in
Germany. The Christian Union would have to scramble to find a new leader for the upcoming national
elections in 2017, although that is not really a problem. The party has enough mediocre politicians
like Ms Merkel in the wings, just as capable of following the policy dictated by German and international
business interests. Germany's domestic political landscape is in flux, as in most of Europe, which
makes any predictions concerning the future precarious.
As for Ms Merkel, she will have been a victim of endemic German hubris, not content with being
the "Mutti" of Germany and the iron fist of Europe, but wanting to be a saint as well (and pocket
the Nobel Peace Prize). Unfortunately – as always – others have paid and will pay the price: the
thousands of refugees who will have died trying to reach the shelter of Europe, as well as those
that make it, but will become victims of European racism and greed, and especially of the corrupt
European political class. The great hope are the millions of decent Europeans, who know what solidarity
is and value the Humanitarianism that was born here.
Well, to be read with more than a pinch of salt . and I have too little time to depict it properly.
1. Merkel has continued her lawless activity, started with the Greek bailout 1.0 (to save French
banks, Sarkozy and German banks, in that order) with the refugee crisis. I do not know what her
motives for opening the borders were, but not to close them in time was a fatal error;
especially for the German democratic system, because there was neither the will nor the instruments
to stop her. What a blow to the cherished "basic law", exposed as an empty shell. A poisoned arrow,
slowly permeating the state of Germany, questioning the functionality of the entire German democracy.
2. Possibly a blessing in disguise, the unfolding refugee crisis (a mixture of war refugees
and economic migration) has exposed "EU solidarity" or "Merkel leads Europe" for what it always
was – the periphery needed (and needs) the German credit card to maintain the appearance of solvency
– so they temporarily bowed to the inevitable, but out of selfish interest, not overarching interest
in "solidarity"; which was a one-way street, always. So the lack of support for her should have
been no surprise for anybody, but Berlin still manages to keep up the illusion. This was fatally
complemented by the hubris not to inform anybody before the deed, thus giving all the uninformed
union members of the feeling of second or third best . not the best basis to ask for help.
3. Unbeknownst to any non-German speaker, there is a "fifths" power emerging, something akin
to a "speech police" – were any – and I mean any – criticism or resistance is labeled immediately
as "geistige Brandstiftung" (roughly mental arson), and a stereotype for right wing Nazi idea's.
A lot of words are becoming unusable [emergency,unlawful and similar], unless you want to be labeled
as "populist", right wing or worse. Consequently, there is no unbiased discussion possible, anywhere,
so a calamitous silence becomes ever more prevalent by the day. Note, that Facebook is now policed
by the subsidiary of Bertelsmann, a big German publishing house, to remove "incitement" and similar
posts.
4. Slowly some parts of the German main stream press are waking up to the fallacies caused
by the blanket invitation – the refugees coming are more or less unskilled, and thus quick integration
into the German labor market is improbable, to say the least.
5. However, the political establishment, i.e. the parties currently represented in parliament,
have lost any connection to what the populace is thinking (quietly, as per 3.) and a mutiny is
brewing even in normally patient and middle of the road guys; fueled by the wishful thinking of
all will be well. And the muddling through will continue, unless some force outside of control
of Berlin will stop it, thus exposing the inability of the "state" to keep a semblance of democracy
and to govern within the framework of the "basic law", as the parliament and the press both failed
to stop Merkel.
Honestly, I am not sure what to wish for, the continuation or the exposure of harsh reality.
About your first point, Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably
saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being
welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue
emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her.
She is a Christian Democrat. She is mediocre by definition. I doubt she could ever conceive
of her plans going wrong.
This is one of the reasons I love NC so much – nice to see something in-depth and suitably
skeptical about a country which despite its huge importance is rarely reported in real detail
in the mainstream English language press. There is often much better reporting of China or Japan
than Germany for some odd reason.
I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press
– even people from the left seem to have a sort of grudging admiration and even affection for
her. In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking
the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European
economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain
her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives
– unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses.
Does anyone know good english sources regarding Hungary and Orban? They seem to be under the
same MSM cloud occluding realistic views of what's happening in Russia. But its hard to tell because
information is so thin. If its in the Times, WSJ or FT, it appears on its face to be propaganda
simply from the personalization of the country into the leader.
Which infrastructure, exactly, is rotting? I agree Germany isn't some kind of luminary leftist
paradise. But relative to us Anglo-Americans, things are working rather well there from
the perspective of social and built landscape infrastructure.
Germany has maintained its relatively healthy public sector balance mainly through massive
cuts in infrastructural spending. Its not immediately noticeable as a combination of low population
growth and high levels of investment in the post war years has left it with a very good historic
legacy. But only Spain has a lower level of public investment as a percentage of GDP as
this FT article e xplains:
Its not just transport infrastructure – the power infrastructure is creaking too, with poor
interconnectedness across the country. Housing and building stock is visibly deteriorating due
to a lack of investment. Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped
investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic
counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. Germany can get away with this
for a decade or more, but eventually the chickens will come home to roost in the form of huge
bills as roads and railways will require major investments to make up for the neglect.
The real problem is even worse than the total investment spend indicates. For reasons I've
never fully understood, the German building industry is notoriously bad at controlling spending,
so what they do spend is often wasted – the notorious
Brandenburg Airport in Berlin being just one example.
GDP? I would say it's a good thing Germany spends less on healthcare than we do, not a bad
thing. I just don't quite follow where you are going with this. Rotting, creaking, deteriorating,
and comparisons to Dell strike me as sensationalizing the situation. With that kind of language,
I want to see actual decrepit train stations right now, not a potential problem decades from now.
How much capex exactly does Berlin Hauptbahnhof need over the next 5 years?
It is much easier transiting Germany without a car than the US. Amtrak, for example, has two
departures a day from NYC to Chicago (Lakeshore and Capitol), and it will take you 19-21 hours
to get there. Deutsche Bahn has 9 departures from Berlin to Frankfurt, and that's only counting
morning trains with no train changes on the high speed lines. Or in speed terms, your total all
in travel is a little over 80 MPH in Germany with trains leaving regularly and a little over 40
MPH in the US where if you miss your train you get to wait another half day.
If Germany is rotting, what are the Americans doing?
I'm not sure where you get the comment on healthcare from – I was referring entirely to physical
infrastructure. And yes of course, German roads and railways are generally very good, but as that
FT article points out, this is almost entirely a legacy of 20th Century investment. And German
railways have fallen behind France, Spain and other countries in terms of speed and, most notably,
capacity. The problem with not investing consistently in physical infrastructure is that you can
get away with it for a while, but when your existing stock starts hitting the end of its 30 or
40 year design life, the bills to keep things going can be very high. A railway line can last
pretty much forever if you are constantly working on it to improve and maintain it. Neglect it
for a couple of decades and it will start to disintegrate and will need replacing in its entirety.
I brought up Dell as a well known example of a company which suffered from milking an existing
line of products without investing to compete as technology changes. Dell looked healthy and profitable
for a long while until eventually their failures caught up. I thought of them because just a
few days ago I drove past the empty shell of what was their biggest manufacturing centre. There
are plenty of other examples of course.
"Not as fast as le TGV" and "Dell level failure" strike me as radically different uses of language.
FT is behind a paywall, so I don't know the nuance of their argument, but this has a tone I
have heard in other contexts. The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system
when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since
one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been
telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private
partnership options as modeled by London and DC.
Plus, it doesn't jibe with what is available in the English language world about German concerns.
The Germans themselves are not that concerned with a lack of megabuildings and the national pride
of having the biggest/fastest/whateverest national scale projects. Rather, the infrastructure
concerns are primarily about depreciation of local government assets, the small municipal stuff.
Finally, I thought you were talking about recent changes with Merkel and co. Now you're taking
this back many years or decades? Germany has done lots of infrastructure construction over the
past couple decades. They have a more equal society than we do. They have more efficient healthcare
than we do. These things all directly contradict widespread, catastrophic failure. That's the
connection. Even if there is room for improvement (which of course, there always is), there is
much less systemic failure compared to USUK.
I repeat what I have already stated in a
comment to a previous article: Merkel and her government did not invite refugees
to Germany. In fact, every measure taken so far had only one objective: keep as many
of those refugees as far away from Germany as possible. Hence:
1) Dublin: the rule that refugees must remain and ask for asylum in the first country of entry
to the EU - which for obvious geographical reasons happens never to be Germany.
2) Africa: (1) collapses under the massive flows of desperate people? Then bribe African countries
to prevent migrants from moving to Europe.
3) Turkey: (2) fails? Then bribe Turkey to keep refugees in camps and prevent them from crossing
the Mediterranean.
4) Hotspots: (3) is taking too much time? Then make sure that refugees are blocked at the periphery
of the EU - in Italy and Greece.
5) Quotas: re-distributed those refugees stuck in (4) and who want to go to Germany or Sweden
to somewhere else, away from Germany.
6) Countries of origin: declare countries as safe, making it possible to deport refugees quickly.
7) Subsidiary protection: if (6) does not work, ensure that asylum seekers are not treated
as full-fledged refugees, making them easier to deport once war abates.
8) If (7) does not work and refugee status must be granted, then restrict family reunification
to prevent more people coming.
And so on, and so forth. Most of those measures failed.
The fact that Merkel was forced to accept droves of refugees entering Germany is due
to three reasons:
a) There are German, EU and international laws that Germany must abide with, and that compel
the country to accept asylum seekers.
b) The Dublin-Schengen glacis in the Balkans collapsed under the sheer number of people suddenly
moving to the EU.
c) Other countries, especially poorer ones, have been so infuriated by an overbearing Germany
and its lack of solidarity in the past that they gleefully try to have Germany pick up the tab
for the crisis.
Those who criticize Merkel in Germany (and elsewhere) would face exactly the same quandary
in her position: either violate international, EU and German laws to stop refugees at the border;
or frantically try to hack some legal measure to deflect the flow of people to their country.
Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited
refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their
friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult.
Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as
chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria.
It looks that way to me too. More like a secret agreement between Russia, the US, France, Germany
and the UK. Russia and France would "go in" to Syria; the US and the UK would provide all the
support needed, and Germany would maintain its pacifist position by accepting the refugees. But
when the first giant wave of refugees arrived, the great humanitarian heart of the German people
had a big infarction and they started burning down refugee housing, etc. I didn't know NATO had
sent warships to turn the refugees back to Turkey, whereupon Turkey will once again launch them
away. This whole thing is shameless. The entire western world is an odious farce.
Merkel did, if involuntarily, invite a lot of migrants, and it was not covered by EU, German
or other law – see link, four professors of law, not me.
You can apply for political asylum only if you are on German soil, and I am not aware of any
neighboring state where a war is fought or persecution is prevalent – in the middle of the EU.
Geneva applies only to adjacent countries, and again – "for obvious geographic reasons" – not
applicable. So if Dublin would be applied, NONE of the migrants had a legal right to come to Germany.
As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances
motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval
of the parliament, currently outstanding.
Merkel certainly is in a quandary to square the circle of "push and pull" factors, some self-inflicted,
some admittedly not so much.
Whilst some in Germany are suffering from a pathological "need to help" (to feel better/superior)
– and thrive on "helping", there was no legal precedence to issue the "blanket invitation" on
September 4th. Period. And while the will to help war refugees from Syria and Iraq is laudable,
it has been abused by scores of people from Northern Africa, the Balkans, etc. Why do think so
many people are arriving without passports, if claiming to come from Syria is like winning the
jackpot, i.e. the right to stay and much better life chances.
Even if not imaginable for many Westerners, lot of families have sold everything, gone into
debt to sent one family member, feathered the nest of the smugglers for this hope. At the very
least there has been serious failure of communication – to manage expectations – as we all could
observe over the recent month; partly because Merkel does not dare to touch the elephant in the
room, the missing legal framework for legal economic immigration, thus the "political asylum"
is stretched beyond it's limits.
And her "plan" is defeated simply by the sheer numbers – whilst 1 million all over the EU might
have been possible, the 60-80 mio people globally in search of a better life – will be too much
for Germany alone.
The only reason for her to be still in power, other than the missing emergency brakes in the
German Democratic system, is the fear of the CDU members to loose their own position of power,
there is no vision to what could follow Merkel whilst preserving their own position.
The legal review you refer to basically amounts to recalling that Dublin allows Germany to
push asylum seekers back to Austria, which is legally the place where they must ask for refugee
status because that country allowed them to cross its territory after declining to send them back
to Hungary (or Slovenia, or ) Taking into account the fact that Germany is allowed to make individual
exceptions and not granting them "en masse", this is basically a call to dump the hot potato onto
Austria's lap.
Basically, this would be tactic (9): harp on the legal fine points and have Germany's bordering
countries deal with the refugees. Austria has already put in place a throttling mechanism to make
sure it does not have to deal with lots of cases anyway - and that although much more effective
than a zealous and pedantic application of the Dublin stipulations, this mechanism has dubious
legality.
With this, we have not left the tactic desperately followed by Merkel et al: deflect the refugees
as much as possible from Germany, and let others deal with the mess. Just as I described.
Regarding the 4th September decision (actually 5th September), it was clearly a measure to
relieve temporarily the pressure on Hungary by allowing only those refugees
who had already reached Hungary to proceed to Austria and further to Germany. The reason:
Hungary was seriously on its way to crash Schengen, Schengen was essential (for reasons already
discussed) to Germany, and Merkel was desperate to save Schengen from collapsing. It did not work:
on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders
have closed further.
But a "blanket invitation"? In no way. The fact that it was interpreted in such a way by the
press and that it sucked in more refugees arriving in Greece was something Merkel could have predicted
and forestalled, but she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to
her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision.
Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers,
etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking
place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore of the Canary Islands
not on Lesbos, and when Ceuta and Melilla where being frantically fortified, not Bulgaria or Macedonia.
The only thing that has changed is that the flows have progressively move East towards Europe's
soft underbelly, and that at each stage they grew by an order of magnitude. Spain dealt with tens
of thousands of people per year, Italy with hundreds of thousands, and now we have reached the
million mark in the Balkans. All the improvised plans on quotas, hot-spots, UNHCR funding, etc,
come 20 years too late.
a) we agree the current practice is illegal. b) it might sound morally superior to "help" the
Austrians, but for whom is it the better solution? c) I maintain the "blanket invitation" was
the result, even if unintended – the appearance of "all are welcome" incentivised too many to
uproot themselves in vain d) true, the collective refusal of Germany and the rest of Europe to
deal with the (economic) immigration question for decades has contributed to the current situation
– however, Merkel's solo attempt to solve the Budapest issue, and adding insult to injury – without
informing the "partners" supposed to share the burden beforehand – was neither effective, nor
sensible, nor diplomatic. e) I wonder whether the "save Schengen" argument will survive the scrutiny
of hindsight, i.e. IMHO it does not sound credible, but I can only speculate and I will refrain.
Schengen is important to the German economy, but the price paid – utter distrust by the majority
of Germans into the government, state and press was much too high, I think. There must have been
higher stakes at play, I guess. f) Merkel wasted 5-6 month to create a proper immigration law,
differentiating the three routes, i.e. asylum, temporary war shelter due to Geneva Convention
and "economic immigration" – and to entice the rest of Europe to deal with it, as she has not
started the process to update the archaic German laws regarding sexual harassment, rape etc to
EU wide standards, the current draft is wanting – before and after Cologne. g) She burdened the
Germans with
1. with a lot of unskilled and difficult to integrate Migrants
2. destroyed whatever goodwill there was towards Germany in Europe or the world –
3. settled the country with global unease about a Germany so out of bounds, palpable for everyone
outside Berlin – years of reputation building down the drain
4. recently gave the appearance of obstinacy to stick to a plan unsuited for reality, stubbornly
ignoring the unwillingness of the other Europeans to sacrifice their countries alongside Germany
– there will be no support and no "coalition of the willing" – at least not until Merkel sees
reason and closes the borders. I do think her comment yesterday, about "migrants to not have the
right to choose where to apply for asylum" was tentatively going in the right direction, but was
certainly not strong enough to persuade desperate people not to start their journey or to go home
from Greece.
5. more or less exposed the German democratic system as incapable in dealing with this emergency
situation in a legal and democratic way
6. allowing H. Maas to accuse the ex constitutional judges of "mental arson" for voicing objections
(FAZ) – the article was just about short of telling the judges to shut up, which, as an indication
of were free speech is going, was rather frightening
And no realism or vision in sight. Deplorable, for Germany and everybody else.
Send a couple of million to the US and to Saudi Arabia. And keep expediting the rest to Germany,
with all due haste. The Balkans are indeed shutting down the borders, but given the mountainous
terrain some migrants will inevitably slip through. Personally I find it a good investment to
charter planes to Berlin and fly them directly to Madame Merkel. Because that's what hse deserves
for being a spineless puppet, and for also kissing the ring of the wanna-be sultan in Ankara.
The emperor is naked!
Who should deal with this migration crisis? EU council or angela? I mean, you have a bunch of
bureaucrats in bruxelles and EU was supposed to be led by this council? Also, EU has a puppet
president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind
of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give
me a break! And angela she is past due date already!
This post seems a little disjointed. Is the argument that Merkel specifically and Germany generally
is bad because they're not as open as they ought to be to foreign nationals? Or is the post saying
Germany is bad because they are too open to foreign nationals?
And is Germany bad because they trap Greece in an evil, domineering EMU? Or is Germany bad
because they're kicking Greece out of a great, happy EMU?
I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously
challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting
to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement
opposing government policy.
Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion
that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee
labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by
taxes on the middle class). Even a technically sophisticated economy needs quite a lot of
'unskilled' labor, and replacing a few million Germans making 15 euro/hour with refugees that
only need be directly paid a euro an hour, can make the right companies an awful lot of money.
Do the math.
And on another note: we constantly hear that more people are always better, that anyone suggesting
that opening the borders to the overpopulated third world could possibly in any way be a bad thing,
must a priori be racist. So surely bottling up all those refugees in Greece can only be wonderful?
Why not do the Greeks a favor and force them to take all the surplus populations from Syria, Iraq,
Algeria, Pakistan etc? That simply MUST be wonderful and anyone objecting must be a fascist like
Golden Dawn or Donald Trump and such hateful speech should be quashed as quickly as possible.
Because people are the ultimate resource and it doesn't matter if Greece runs out of food or fresh
water or timber or housing or electric generating capacity etc., because more people will automatically
and without delay create even more wealth despite having nothing to work with. Yes?
It is quite astonishing to read these reports but there are no explanations of the causes.
The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by
the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to
the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working
to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is
the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West.
"Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs
at their disposal."
Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation
of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans
was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same
class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final
analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.
... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows
your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what
hit them.
I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo
Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.
"... By Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
"... So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems? ..."
"... As a candidate, Trump vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans used to call the Global War on Terrorism. ..."
"... In that regard, his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to come. ..."
"... To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment, because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that swamp. ..."
"... Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed. ..."
"... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
"... Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem? ..."
"... The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then, make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by Veterans for Peace . Graduation should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." ..."
"... this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the past would be rolling around laughing at this lot. ..."
"... They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones. ..."
"... I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market. ..."
"... If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which they can be pursued. ..."
"... It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg. ..."
"... The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential, all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing, education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding). ..."
"... For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents can be increased. ..."
"... Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S. military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula; and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride. ..."
"... I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each other's backs publicly. ..."
"... I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that "some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the piece. ..."
"... Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step forward, I highly doubt it. ..."
"... Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one. ..."
"... There isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance. It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether. ..."
"... James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume ..."
"... Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of the conflict. ..."
"... Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction. We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow. ..."
"... You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large. Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded claptrap. ..."
"... Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking ice creams. ..."
"... Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking I don't know what will. ..."
"... The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences. They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else. Consequences and payback are externalized in their world ..."
"... 30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project. ..."
"... I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus. ..."
"... Its no secret or mystery about what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery. ..."
"... There are now more people in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots for the profiteers. ..."
"... I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival? ..."
"... Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy. ..."
"... In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war. ..."
"... Generals and admirals are all adept politicians and bureaucrats. they have to be to get to that level in the structure. War-fighters, no so much, with few exceptions, https://fabiusmaximus.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/ . ..."
"... It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html . And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack and blast each other while the senders get rich." ..."
"... So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with? ..."
"... I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence. ..."
"... I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure that it's own companies got the best deals? ..."
"... First and foremost the US is the greatest spender in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. ..."
"... Spreading fear might not be the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly Iraq. ..."
"... The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W. Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us. ..."
"... The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it. ..."
"... You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy. The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural ideal. ..."
"... The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government. ..."
"... Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White Hats" are a fraud. ..."
"... US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them and install a different, weaker regime. ..."
"... Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the regime support, means loss of control over the regime. ..."
"... So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA built up to effect regime change. ..."
"... I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians. I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war. ..."
"... Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal, libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main thrust of our attack on this nightmare. ..."
"... I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences, whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative era. ..."
"... Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements in this regard. ..."
"... Only Mussolini and Goering had a leg up on MacArthur regarding bling. ..."
"... Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in "the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance". ..."
"... Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part. ..."
"... But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq, for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent stupidity of the idea. ..."
"... Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial. ..."
"... A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000 ..."
"... Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives. In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking up their countries?? ..."
"... I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years. ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime soon ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire ..."
"... Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved. ..."
"... I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology (they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism). In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than many other empires. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing, testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough. ..."
"... This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies and corruption. ..."
"... Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal. "Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must be incompetent!" ..."
"... So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades (ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance. ..."
"... So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping the yoke, but we haven't given up. ..."
"... Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades. Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check. ..."
"... Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy. Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture? Are we any closer to FSD, or not? ..."
"... I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout." ..."
"... Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market. So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him. ..."
"... Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere. Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony, and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington. Every single one. ..."
"... The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass. ..."
"... Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them. ..."
"... The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers. ..."
"... If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly. WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump's message for the nation's senior military leadership is ambiguously
unambiguous. Here is he on 60 Minutes just days after winning the election.
Trump: "We have some great generals. We have great generals."
Lesley Stahl: "You said you knew more than the generals about ISIS."
Trump: "Well, I'll be honest with you, I probably do because look at the job they've done. OK,
look at the job they've done. They haven't done the job."
In reality, Trump, the former reality show host, knows next to nothing about ISIS, one of many
gaps in his education that his impending encounter with actual reality is likely to fill. Yet
when it comes to America's generals, our president-to-be is onto something. No doubt our three-
and four-star officers qualify as "great" in the sense that they mean well, work hard, and are altogether
fine men and women. That they have not "done the job," however, is indisputable - at least if their
job is to bring America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion.
Trump's unhappy verdict - that the senior U.S. military leadership doesn't know how to win - applies
in spades to the two principal conflicts of the post-9/11 era: the Afghanistan War, now in its 16th
year, and the Iraq War, launched in 2003 and (after a brief hiatus) once more grinding on.
Yet the verdict applies equally to lesser theaters of conflict, largely overlooked by the American
public, that in recent years have engaged the attention of U.S. forces, a list that would include
conflicts in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Granted, our generals have demonstrated an impressive aptitude for moving pieces around on a dauntingly
complex military chessboard. Brigades, battle groups, and squadrons shuttle in and out of various
war zones, responding to the needs of the moment. The sheer immensity of the enterprise across
the Greater Middle East and northern Africa - the
sorties flown ,
munitions expended , the seamless deployment and redeployment of thousands of troops over thousands
of miles, the vast stockpiles of material positioned, expended, and continuously resupplied - represents
a staggering achievement. Measured by these or similar quantifiable outputs, America's military has
excelled. No other military establishment in history could have come close to duplicating the
logistical feats being performed year in, year out by the armed forces of the United States.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants
have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although
modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial.
Yet in evaluating military operations, it's a mistake to confuse how much with how
well . Only rarely do the outcomes of armed conflicts turn on comparative statistics.
Ultimately, the one measure of success that really matters involves achieving war's political purposes.
By that standard, victory requires not simply the defeat of the enemy, but accomplishing the nation's
stated war aims, and not just in part or temporarily but definitively. Anything less constitutes
failure, not to mention utter waste for taxpayers, and for those called upon to fight, it constitutes
cause for mourning.
By that standard, having been "at war" for virtually the entire twenty-first century, the United
States military is still looking for its first win. And however strong the disinclination to
concede that Donald Trump could be right about anything, his verdict on American generalship qualifies
as apt.
A Never-Ending Parade of Commanders for Wars That Never End
That verdict brings to mind three questions. First, with Trump a rare exception, why have the
recurring shortcomings of America's military leadership largely escaped notice? Second, to
what degree does faulty generalship suffice to explain why actual victory has proven so elusive?
Third, to the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy bear directly on the
outcome of our wars, how might the generals improve their game?
As to the first question, the explanation is quite simple: During protracted wars, traditional
standards for measuring generalship lose their salience. Without pertinent standards, there
can be no accountability. Absent accountability, failings and weaknesses escape notice.
Eventually, what you've become accustomed to seems tolerable. Twenty-first century Americans inured
to wars that never end have long since forgotten that bringing such conflicts to a prompt and successful
conclusion once defined the very essence of what generals were expected to do.
Senior military officers were presumed to possess unique expertise in designing campaigns and
directing engagements. Not found among mere civilians or even among soldiers of lesser rank,
this expertise provided the rationale for conferring status and authority on generals.
In earlier eras, the very structure of wars provided a relatively straightforward mechanism for
testing such claims to expertise. Events on the battlefield rendered harsh judgments, creating
or destroying reputations with brutal efficiency.
Back then, standards employed in evaluating generalship were clear-cut and uncompromising.
Those who won battles earned fame, glory, and the gratitude of their countrymen. Those who
lost battles got fired or were put out to pasture.
During the Civil War, for example, Abraham Lincoln did not need an advanced degree in strategic
studies to conclude that Union generals like John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker didn't
have what it took to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. Humiliating defeats sustained by
the Army of the Potomac at the Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville made that obvious
enough. Similarly, the victories Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman gained at Shiloh,
at Vicksburg, and in the Chattanooga campaign strongly suggested that here was the team to which
the president could entrust the task of bringing the Confederacy to its knees.
Today,
public drunkenness ,
petty corruption , or
sexual shenanigans with a subordinate might land generals in hot water. But as long as
they avoid egregious misbehavior, senior officers charged with prosecuting America's wars are largely
spared judgments of any sort. Trying hard is enough to get a passing grade.
With the country's political leaders and public conditioned to conflicts seemingly destined to
drag on for years, if not decades, no one expects the current general-in-chief in Iraq or Afghanistan
to bring things to a successful conclusion. His job is merely to manage the situation until
he passes it along to a successor, while duly adding to his collection of personal decorations and
perhaps advancing his career.
Today, for example, Army General John Nicholson commands U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.
He's only the latest in a long line of senior officers to preside over that war, beginning with General
Tommy Franks in 2001 and continuing with Generals Mikolashek, Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKiernan,
McChrystal, Petraeus, Allen, Dunford, and Campbell. The title carried by these officers changed
over time. So, too, did the specifics of their "mission" as Operation Enduring Freedom evolved
into Operation Freedom's Sentinel. Yet even as expectations slipped lower and lower, none of
the commanders rotating through Kabul delivered. Not a single one has, in our president-elect's
concise formulation, "done the job." Indeed, it's increasingly difficult to know what that
job is, apart from preventing the Taliban from quite literally toppling the government.
In Iraq, meanwhile, Army Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend currently serves as the - count 'em
- ninth American to command U.S. and coalition forces in that country since the George W. Bush administration
ordered the invasion of 2003. The first in that line, (once again) General Tommy Franks, overthrew
the Saddam Hussein regime and thereby broke Iraq. The next five, Generals Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus,
Odierno, and Austin, labored for eight years to put it back together again.
At the end of 2011, President Obama declared that they had done just that and terminated the U.S.
military occupation. The Islamic State soon exposed Obama's claim as specious when its militants
put a U.S.-trained Iraqi army to flight and annexed
large swathes of that country's territory. Following in the footsteps of his immediate
predecessors Generals James Terry and Sean MacFarland, General Townsend now shoulders the task of
trying to restore Iraq's status as a more or less genuinely sovereign state. He directs what
the Pentagon calls Operation Inherent Resolve, dating from June 2014, the follow-on to Operation
New Dawn (September 2010-December 2011), which was itself the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom
(March 2003-August 2010).
When and how Inherent Resolve will conclude is difficult to forecast. This much we can,
however, say with some confidence: with the end nowhere in sight, General Townsend won't be its last
commander. Other generals are waiting in the wings with their own careers to polish.
As in Kabul, the parade of U.S. military commanders through Baghdad will continue.
For some readers, this listing of mostly forgotten names and dates may have a soporific effect.
Yet it should also drive home Trump's point. The United States may today have the world's most
powerful and capable military - so at least we are constantly told. Yet the record shows that
it does not have a corps of senior officers who know how to translate capability into successful
outcomes.
Draining Which Swamp?
That brings us to the second question: Even if commander-in-chief Trump were somehow able
to identify modern day equivalents of Grant and Sherman to implement his war plans, secret or otherwise,
would they deliver victory?
On that score, we would do well to entertain doubts. Although senior officers charged with
running recent American wars have not exactly covered themselves in glory, it doesn't follow that
their shortcomings offer the sole or even a principal explanation for why those wars have yielded
such disappointing results. The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or
not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should
I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to
solve any of my problems?
One mark of a successful business executive is knowing when to cut your losses. It's also the
mark of a successful statesman. Trump claims to be the former. Whether his putative business
savvy will translate into the world of statecraft remains to be seen. Early signs are not promising.
As a candidate, Trump
vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding
for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans
used to call the Global War on Terrorism.
Toward that end, the incoming administration may well revive some aspects of the George W. Bush
playbook, including repopulating the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "if it's
so important to the American people," reinstituting torture. The Trump administration will
at least consider re-imposing sanctions on countries like Iran. It may aggressively exploit
the offensive potential of cyber-weapons, betting that America's cyber-defenses will hold.
Yet President Trump is also likely to double down on the use of conventional military force.
In that regard,
his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to
come. His appointment of the uber-hawkish Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his national security
adviser and his rumored selection of retired Marine Corps General James ("Mad Dog") Mattis as defense
secretary suggest that he means what he says. In sum, a Trump administration seems unlikely
to reexamine the conviction that the problems roiling the Greater Middle East will someday, somehow
yield to a U.S.-imposed military solution. Indeed, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary,
that conviction will deepen, with genuinely ironic implications for the Trump presidency.
In the immediate wake of 9/11, George W. Bush concocted a fantasy of American soldiers liberating
oppressed Afghans and Iraqis and thereby "
draining the swamp " that served to incubate anti-Western terrorism. The results achieved
proved beyond disappointing, while the costs exacted in terms of lives and dollars squandered were
painful indeed. Incrementally, with the passage of time, many Americans concluded that perhaps
the swamp most in need of attention was not on the far side of the planet but much closer at hand
- right in the imperial city nestled alongside the Potomac River.
To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment,
because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that
swamp.
Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created that swamp in the
first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides a rationale for
federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government bigger and more
intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes tens of billions
of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the swamp, nothing works
better than war.
Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great
Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His
liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent
Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed.
But don't hold your breath on that one. All signs indicate that, in one fashion or another,
our combative next president will perpetuate the wars he's inheriting. Trump may fancy that,
as a veteran of Celebrity Apprentice (but not of military service), he possesses a special
knack for spotting the next Grant or Sherman. But acting on that impulse will merely replenish
the swamp in the Greater Middle East along with the one in Washington. And soon enough, those
who elected him with expectations of seeing the much-despised establishment dismantled will realize
that they've been had.
Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of
the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem?
The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then,
make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and
Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by
Veterans for Peace . Graduation
should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant
himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent
the drawing of the sword."
True, such an approach may seem a bit draconian. But this is no time for half-measures - as even
Donald Trump may eventually recognize.
As much s I have appreciated Bacevich's views over the past decade, my reaction to this is
that he's asking the wrong questions. Just what would a "victory" in these imperial interventions
look like? Does he really think our military is protecting our nation? I don't.
I believe his point is narrower. Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would (in the eyes of the
establishment) have involved the pacification of those countries with pro-capitalist and pro-western
nominally democratic governments in charge (i.e. puppets). That is what the explicit and implicit
aim of those invasions was to be. The military was charged with achieving those ends, and they
failed (as they've failed elsewhere). And yet, even by the criteria set by the establishment,
there has been zero accountability.
And this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were
competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who
can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the
past would be rolling around laughing at this lot.
Thank you. Well said. You are right to make the distinction between competent, incompetent
and real imperialists. My parents came to the UK from a colony in the mid-1960s and talk about
the colonial officials they came across. It was the same with my grandparents. I have come across
the aspiring neo-cons on the make (and on the take) in the City, marking time until they can be
parachuted into a safe seat.
Few, if any, speak a foreign language and / or spent much time abroad.
They give the impression of playing chess from Tory Central Office or some "think tank", but with
other countries and lives of people they know nothing, much less care, about. As we watched Obama
being crowned in 2009, one (an aspiring Tory MP and former central office staffer) forecasted
that Obama would go down as the worst president in history and added that Bush would go down as
one of the greats. I made my excuses and went home.
They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction
companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are
easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones.
As such, they're not failing, except insofar as they are losing access to markets. And that isn't
really the case either, since the iraqi don't form a market that matters; whereas the notional
'rebuilding effort' - which did provide opportunities for looting - is/was pretty much over anyway,
once it became impossible to deny it "failed".
I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have
argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market.
If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable
conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they
need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends
up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which
they can be pursued.
It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional
committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market
to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg.
The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means
of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential,
all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing,
education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets
trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well
established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding).
For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures
to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and
goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question
is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether
and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents
can be increased.
There are many aspects of this particular proud strain of dysfunction capitalism – US weapon
exports, "foreign aid" to Israel or Saudi Arabia, support for proxy forces, actual direct expenditure
of armaments, and of course force modernization and extension are some of the many flavors. The
fuel cost alone for moving men and materiel "fuels" entire industries. It would not at all be
surprising to find that those 700 bases maintained – and expanded – are completely useless – if
not even significant liabilities – while at the same time improving the bottom line of many suppliers.
PMC's and the growing industry supporting ever-increasing logistical "needs" are another vector
of the disease. Terrorism, of course, and the market for global and domestic surveillance and
"public safety", is both a consequence and a pretext. The perfect racket produces its own justification
while profit shares increase and "product" cost decrease.
It is the privilege of the continental US that, wedged between two oceans, a colony of the
crown and a failed state, that it is largely insulated from the blowback of the various theaters
of war profiteering (this is, after all, the major advantage the national security racket has
over the competing domestic leeches). It stand to reason that the weaker the coupling to the fallout
from profitable dysfunction, the longer trends that cannot continue will.
Iraq 2003 might well have been the last time that any of the major industries involved had
any earnest intention to profit from the theater itself. Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. are in the main
write-offs, pretexts that open profit channels but not part of it. It is usually ignored that
the main issue China and Russia have with the US and its minion states is the abrogation of the
concept of sovereign nation stages, going all the way back to Clinton's interventions in the Balkans.
By accident or design, US foreign policy is one of scorched earth, preferring failed states to
nations capable of resistance. This, too, is a consequence of that "splendid insulation".
Thank you, b., for saying clearly what so many of us perceive dimly through the fog of propaganda,
and struggle to name.
Next question: is there a prayer of catalyzing a healthier political economy, or do we ordinary
people just live until we die, as best we can manage? Maybe "judiciously studying the actions"
and talking learnedly about them among our percipient selves, until even that illusion of action
is finally blocked?
"In the end, he found he could not help himself: He loved Big Brother."
The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S.
military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula;
and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military
has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride.
Let us pray that President Trump's small mind and loose tongue substantially degrades the willingness
of the U.S.'s partners to continue to play along. May he make America un-great again. Amen.
In the US today, we have raised a whole generation of kids where "winning matters not." To
that extent we, and our generals – whether imperialistic or corporatistic, are all "special snowflakes"
that deserve "participation trophy's" so we don't cry and act out over not winning. I say give
all our general's another star for starting and participating in wars that can't be won to begin
with. Where participation and not winning is the objective. Three cheers: hip, hip, hooray!
I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take
is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its
control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that
measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each
other's backs publicly.
However, they must now admit that they did not think the case of Iraq through, and the case
of Syria is a complete failure, raising the stature of Russia to a super power again, while slowly
but surely losing influence on Iraq and Egypt. But, that, arguably, could not have been realistically
expected of the generals of the time to predict.
I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that
"some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion,
some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the
piece.
Grant's rise from drunk who couldn't get a job in 1861 and W Scott's efforts to recruit Bobby
Lee, a guy who was out of the army for years by that point, are indications the general class
was never particularly competent.
I think you need to re-read the post again. He is asking the right questions and provides a
history lesson besides. The beginning paragraphs could be interpreted as the standard, we need
victory fare, but all is designed to lead to his final prescription for action- all the while
being very diplomatic and appreciative to those who serve in the military.
Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the
top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved
and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step
forward, I highly doubt it.
Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without
a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity
form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one.
Could Trump shake up the gridlock, we shall see. Like a toxic mine tailing pit, once the retaining
walls are breached, the effluence tends to spill out very quickly.
Silly question: Does the fault lie in our generals or in our commander in chief? Which leads
to another silly question: Who does our commander in chief answer to?
The generals seem to be only as effective as the policy they are prescribed to carry out. They
ultimately answer to the President. So if they're ordered to carry out an impossible task they
will obviously fail and they will kick the can down the road to save their own reputations.
There
isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since
the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance.
It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests
but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what
happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed
to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether.
Yes, the good doctor should resolutely shoulder the burden of "opposition party spokesman"
and return to the fray. If we all took every slight and injury offered online to heart, there
would be nary a rational word communicated, and, we would have much recourse to the suppressed
Rogers Profanisaurus.
Besides, Upstate New York must be cold now, and the Professor spending a lot of time being housebound.
I stood in James' corner once or twice as he started lashing out, as I thought he was just
having a few bad days. It went on and I simply ran out of patience with him when he wrote his
farewell screed and signed off with:
James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume
It will be interesting to hear from readers if they have colleagues who are former service
men and women. There has been an influx in the City since the crisis, but they were always there
in fewer numbers. Some thrive in admin / COO roles, but many are frustrated and last no more than
a couple of years. Dad retired from the Royal Air Force in March 1991 after 25 years. He found
it difficult to settle in civilian life (employed as a doctor at St Mary's hospital in west London)
and left at the end of 1991 for a development project in southern Africa (a year or so of being
a middle class welfare junkie masquerading as a Foreign Office adviser) and twenty years working
for Persian Gulf despots around MENA.
I'm a Vietnam vet and I did respond but it has been ignored as usual. The point of my post
was that the generals do what they are ordered to do by the commander in chief and the problem
lies with whoever that is at any given time. From that flows the logical point that we elect the
commander in chief and don't really pay much attention to what he orders. The fault lies with
the electorate. Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated
voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers
set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. The president at any given
time just does what he wants and the only possible means of accountability is through the voting
booth. Our wars last stopped when the populace had skin in the game and made it extremely clear
to Nixon that we wanted an end. We have met the enemy and he is us.
The fault lies partly with the electorate, but also with Congress. For more than a decade,
Charlie Rangel has been introducing bills to reinstate the draft. Crickets from Congress.
I'm a former member of the Selective Service Board, and yes, they still exist. A draft in order
to be effective, cannot offer deferments (a la Dick Cheney) and still be fair. Only until those
who order the wars have family members (including women) subject to a draft, will we cease our
idiotic imperialist impulses.
While all you say is true, 40 years of corporate evolution in the political sphere has changed
the equation. As the last election cycle has shown, any attempt to alter current relationships
will need political activism intended to change the system not just gaining office to make slight
course corrections. We as a people are too far off course for that. The Vietnam era was a turning
point and business interests mobilized to never let that fiasco- people power- take root again.
They have been very successful in their mission, but now they have to deal with the problem of
an unwanted and underused population. The unemployable if you will.
Re-instituting the draft is no longer necessary and would be counterproductive to the corporate
mission. As long as our current standing army can be paid off, why bother with a draft, it is
no longer necessary. You avoid the military coup problem also. Our military continues to be bought
off and as long as the economic incentives supporting an excessively large military remain unchallenged,
the draft is unnecessary. Unnecessary from the maintenance of corporate power that is. Corporate
power must be minimized first, then talk of a draft will make more sense. What values are learned
in the military today? USA has ben turned into a corporate brand.
Being poor, unemployable, or one illness away form such a fate is the new skin in the game.
While national service is a force that must be worked into our social responsibilities, its true
meaning for strengthening and protecting the people has been subverted into a tool for corruption.
Voices within the military that call for a return to the ideal of a citizen soldier instead of
a mercenary warrior is what I think Bacevich has in mind.
Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate
army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE
Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of
the conflict.
Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction.
We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more
or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow.
The United States is trying to do Reconstruction in a whole lot of spheres and is failing at
that because it's generally an impossible enterprise.
I would disagree that there were no clear objectives. The objective was to turn Iraq and Afghanistan
and Libya, etc., in to countries like Egypt or Jordan or Indonesia – weakened pro-western (or
at least western-dependent) puppets with a sheen of democratic respectability, where US corporations
could roam free. I don't think there is any need to read anything else into the objectives – that
is the 'ideal' for the neocons, and that was their objective, both stated and unstated.
You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive
wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large.
Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded
claptrap.
Given your definition, however, with which I agree, the Generals have still FAILED. And again,
where's the accountability? There is none.
Trump plans to give himself and all the other Oligarchs, and the corporations giant tax cuts.
There will be some in the middle class who experience a tax increase. Yet we're supposed to bloat
the MIC budget by some huge amount for what purpose?? So Trump can build hotels, golf courses
and casinos in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? Not being all that snarky.
Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence
at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire
the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection
of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking
ice creams.
While a plan might not be 100% successful, I don't see how you characterize the neocon program
an abject failure. It is chugging along just fine. If waste and chaos are states of being that
directly benefit your program, they are probably 90% successful.
If war is a racket, then the good times roll on and talking about failed generals being replaced,
or accountability will be served by getting hold of better generals, those sentiments must make
them chuckle when they are discussing their private positions. Win/Win for the neocons.
Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests
in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking
I don't know what will.
The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but
they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences.
They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else.
Consequences and payback are externalized in their world. If you live in the moment, who cares
about the future. As the illuminist Karl Rove once stated, "We're an empire now, and when we act,
we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will -
we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do."
Well, people don't stay passive actors forever. Just as nature cannot absorb carelessness forever.
A day of reckoning will come- it alway does. Failure is in the mind of the beholder. It depends
on perspective. As the neocons double, tripple, quadruple down on their policies, they will be
able to ride the flaming mess into the ground. Think Clinton.
It is up to us- the sane- to realize the success of the neoliberal program and want out- or
off- or whatever phrase makes sense. In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military
that finally say enough is enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous
act in decades.
In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military that finally say enough is
enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous act in decades.
30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough
is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions
to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project.
I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous
strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible
competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States
which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus.
Its no secret or mystery about
what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more
Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are
making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon
project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery.
The issue of war profiteering is something that I see as something entirely different. What
the neocons failed to anticipate was that their Clash of Civilisations would result in a hugely
powerful military-industrial process which has become self replicating. There are now more people
in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to
stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots
for the profiteers.
I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome
from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute
their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction
of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival?
While I agree with what you are saying, if desiring a peaceful world is on your agenda, then
every effort must be made to not allow the rentiers to take the position of, well now, we overstepped
somewhat, will do better next time.
Making neat divisions is the reason humanity is in the predicament we find ourselves in the
first place. We have dissected the whole into so many parts, it is no longer recognizable.
Modernity has been a dissecting force- a unifying force is needed.
I agree with so much of the analysis here. But why do people insist still (especially given
his recent appointments) that Trump has any interest at all in putting "it" out of our misery?
Color me skeptical.
Hey Kim, as RUKidding says, I wouldn't argue that those are clear objectives, because the generals
that are being talked about above aren't being told up front that they are working toward that
goal.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right about those being the objectives.
Those are the ultimate political goals and the ends of the wars - but generals are never given
them as objectives in this form. Concisely, the objectives of any general are threefold:
1) destroy the enemy forces;
2) break their will to fight;
3) control the territory under dispute.
They learned that at the military academy - after all, these were the fundamental principles
articulated by Carl von Clausewitz almost 200 years ago. Well, in those purely military terms, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are
total failures.
Enemy forces destroyed? They seem inexhaustible.
Territory controlled? Those countries have basically been "no-go" areas ever since war started.
Breaking the enemy's will to fight? Mmmwaaahahahahaha.
Trump is correct on this point: job not done. At all.
Glad you brought up Carl von Clausewitz. I remember the Newsweek article when Gen. Tommy Franks
said there were 9 centers of gravity in Iraq. The article took this as some type of wisdom. It
was clear that Franks hadn't even read the Cliff notes version of On War as there is only one
center of gravity according to Carl von C in which you focus your effort on.
Probably one reason when Franks was put on the Outback Steakhouse board of directors it did
so poorly and was pulled out of Canada. He was a great strategist after all /sarc.
Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and
Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and
know your enemy.
The U.S seems to create the enemy they would like to fight rather than the one
that's actually there and as a nation has no sense of self anymore. They don't understand their
limitations or even their strengths it seems. It seems the Pentagon and the Gov. thinks throwing
money equals effectiveness. I'd argue that the unlimited money is the problem. Actual innovation
often stems from being limited in some way. Mother is the necessity of invention and all that.
Look the German assault teams that were born out of desperation in the final days of WWI. This
concept helped tremendously in WW2 and it wasn't unlimited money that created them.
In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war.
To further this thread as to why the generals have failed:
If the point of these wars is to install a pro-Western style (aka USA business friendly) society
and government, a point to which I agree is the reason for the US's fighting, then how, in God's
name!, are you going to do that when the point of a military is to destroy things and kill people?
(words taken from the cover of DoD's documents). The US military is not to build things and help
people! The generals are asked to do what their own training prevents them and those they direct
from doing.
Anyone remember this 2010 bit of PowerPoint-ia? "'When we understand that slide, we'll have
won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan
mess,"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html
(And note the Brass Balls of the contractor, PA Knowledge Group Ltd, claiming a COPYRIGHT
over this obvious work-for-hire.) This kind of stuff is the daily grist of the strategic/tactical
mill that grinds out body counts, serial deployments in search of missions, and the endless floods
of corrupt cash, destabilizing weapons and internal and external subterfuges, along with a lot
of wry humor and a large helping of despair for the Troops and the mope civilians who "stand too
close to Unlawful Enema Combatants ™".
It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise
counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated
by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with
long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation -
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
. And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind
of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack
and blast each other while the senders get rich."
There's a fundamental problem that to me gets too little attention: What the Empire is doing
is an entirely Barmicide game.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/barmecide
Our rulers here in the Empire are pretty good at the procurement, deployment and logistical
mechanics of Milo Minderbinder's complex Enterprise, the "war as a racket" thing, the extracting
of public wealth to build shiny or stealthy or smart "systems." But as Bacevitch notes, they get
to completely escape from the consequences of Only-tool-in-the-box monomania, of applying the
big hammer of "War" to the subtle tasks of creating and maintaining a survivable space for the
species. Which patently is not the "goal" in any event. And never answered, as pointed out, is
the daring question of "what is the goal/are the goals, and what actions or refraining from actions
are likely to get there?"
The talk about "asymmetric warfare" is mostly whining about little wogs who dare to adopt the
wisdoms of other ambitious and thoughtful humans, like the Afghans and, yes, even ISIS, on how
to defeat (within the terms of the game they are playing and understand that the Empire does NOT
understand the terrain or the rules or moves) invaders and colonialists and even corporatists.
Though the latter are often victorious in the after-conflict processes, if you can't clobber your
enemy, corrupt him! works too.) There are wheels within wheels, of course, and "we mopes" in the
Imperial homeland are too busy eking out a survival locally to even try to contemplate let alone
understand the complexities of even the Middle East, let alone the Great Game being played out
again with Russia and China and the aggressive and Teutonic bosses of the Eurozone All while
the "defence" establishment figures out ever more exotic ways to kill humans, via code (genetic
and cyber) and "smart weapons" like autonomous killing robots "on land, in air, at sea "
So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt
capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb
to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally
collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have
the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with?
I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures
since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone
to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy
apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're
doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence.
I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly
convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at
Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not
have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum
oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure
that it's own companies got the best deals?
I think the most probable explanation is that they believed their own propaganda. They believed
that the Iraqis wanted to be a liberal democracy with a free market, and that US firms would obviously
be the most competitive in a bid for the oil contracts. People like Kerry believe in the ideas
of human rights and war crimes, condemning the Russians for bombing Aleppo even though we do the
exact same thing with a ever so slightly less flimsy justification.
Yes, again, good points, esp in re to the fact that US companies aren't even getting the plum
oil contracts. We were told by feckless Cheney via W that there would be that magical mythical
Iraqi "Oil Dividend" that would not only pay for the War on Iraq – essentially giving us back
the money we spent on it (conveniently ignoring the collateral damage of many US combatant deaths,
and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen deaths, but who cares about that piddling, trifling
detail) – as well as getting more besides.
Eh? And then what? Well that Dick, Cheney, got very very rich offa US taxpayer dollars, and
no doubt some other Oligarchs did as well. But we never ever got paid back for our "investment"
in "freeing" the Iraqi's from their oppressor, Saddam.
And that salient detail was flushed down the memory hole, and duly noted, that at least the
Oligarchs did learn ONE lesson from that bullshit, which is to never ever again even go so far
as to make a promise that the hapless proles in the USA will ever see one thin dime from these
foreign misadventures.
I can't talk from personal experience but I've read plenty of foreign policy publications of
the type taken seriously by academics and politicians, and I'd agree with you. Some are laughably
stupid, they don't know the first thing about the countries they are talking about. It wasn't
just Bush jnr in 2002 who didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, I strongly suspect
that many 'experts' consulted had only the faintest knowledge of what they were dealing with.
There are a scary number of second and third rate intellects roaming around sharing their 'knowledge'.
I think the standard textbook for this should be Graham Greenes
'The Quiet American'
. I've always been amazed at the prescience of that book (he pretty much predicted the arc
of the Vietnam War in 1959), but I always think of the main character, Pyle, when I see yet another
Middle Eastern mess. Pyle is a generally well meaning young man with far too much power, who is
convinced by some academic that he has the key to sorting out the whole Vietnam mess. Needless
to say, lots of innocents die because of his half baked ideas. The establishment is full of Pyles,
although many I think are not quite so well meaning.
I would like to agree with you, but I don't. First and foremost the US is the greatest spender
in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective
is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind
of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. For that reason,
having endless localized wars can be quite useful. Besides using it, the second objective is spread
fear. I have it, I have the will to use it, and I am well trained. Spreading fear might not be
the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly
Iraq.
The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W.
Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without
shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop
us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us.
'why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them?'
And yet the U.S.'s recent, most stupendously expensive weapons systems are unusable.
Literally , they cannot be used for most practical purposes in combat.
The F-35, for instance, has trouble flying and would be bested by air fighters of the previous
generation in combat. The Littoral Combat Ship's aluminum superstructure would burn down to the
waterline if ever one were hit by a missile (among other problems). And there are other projects
that are almost equally ridiculous.
The point is, of course, that with their cost overruns and sheer unusability, these projects
continue precisely because they're stupendously profitable. The American economic system is utterly
dependent on such military Keynesianism, which is a principle means of redistribution from rich
U.S. states to small ones. And consequently we live in a world reminiscent of the world of useless
wepfash designers - weapons fashions designers - envisaged by Philip K. Dick's The Zap Gun.
One takeaway may be that the U.S. can either have the largest level of military Keynesianism
in history or win its wars. It apparently cannot do both.
Remember when Trump threatened to fire a bunch of generals? That really upset a lot of people
in Washington. Replacing a flag officer is a very complicated affair – they have a whole rotation
system set up, to move them from one job to another. That's certainly reflected in the combat
commands as well. They all need to check that box, in order to burnish their credentials. It seems
to be just achieving that rank is the real accomplishment. Measuring their performance afterward
is irrelevant – in that way, it's very similar to how CEOs are treated in the corporate world.
It would be nice if Trump fired a bunch of generals, just because we have too many of them already.
I don't see that happening, though.
Generals get removed. Mattis was retired a year early because he didn't get along with Obama. Whatever "get along'
means. Flynn left early. Remember McChrystal?
Rotation may have benefits of exposure to new areas and skill development opportunities. It
may also hide failures, and demonstrate the military equivalent of the "dance of the lemons" that
shuffles incompetent, corrupt or lazy principals around to different schools. There is more of
a meritocracy in the military, with less overt politicization, although the politics takes different
forms. I write that sadly as one from a family that supports the military and has many veterans.
American discussions about military are sidetracked easily by any number of stakeholders. Politicians
posture for patriotism (alliteration intended to elicit Porky Pig), while collecting campaign
cash. They are only the most visible of those that would shout down or hijack any objective discussion
of mission failures or weapons systems debacles such as the F-35. Their less visible neo-con enablers,
dual loyalty pundits and effective taskmasters all have their snouts in the trough and their rear
ends displayed to the citizens. If there is no other change in DC than to unmask those Acela bandits,
then many will applaud.
War is failure. Do not engage. And for dawgs sake do not arm, train, fund al Q types. I think
the last point in re Trumps way of doing things will be most telling. That would be victory.
Precisely. The US is situated in the safest neighborhood on the planet - oceans on two sides;
Canada and Mexico on the other two. All of the other dozens of nations in the western hemisphere get along just fine without a
global network of military bases and a 350-ship navy.
What the f*** is our problem? As history demonstrates, a value-subtracting global empire is
an infallible recipe for economic decline.
To try to look at the bright side, here's the thing about military people who are "uber hawkish",
or actually managed to get a nickname like "Mad Dog" . they like decisive, "clean" (funny word
to use for blowing people and the landscape to smithereens, but that's what people label it as)
engagements where bad guys are taken out and good guys rejoice.
If they are, and I'm sure they are, smart enough to see that this is exactly not what
the Middle East messes are, they may well tell Trump "let's just get our stuff and go home".
What we have been trying to do in the ME is not, and has never been (going back to before us,
the Russians in Afghanistan) anything where a military makes any sense at all. It's police+political
work at best, and despite what we've been turning the police departments into at home, police
work is very, very different from military work. Hopefully the warrior types see this, whereas
the Hillary Clintons of the world simply won't.
The US can win any standup fight. We quickly smashed the Taliban's military, and Saddam didn't
last long at all. It's the long, grinding guerrilla war that comes after that we inevitably lose.
And even there we will win 99% of the engagements (if all else fails, drop a giant bomb on them)
and yet sooner or later we'll run home with our tail between our legs.
Washington is addicted to gold-plated occupations. Whereas the only route to success is minimalist, an economy of force strategy. That also entails economy of injuries. Occupying forces ought to spend most of their time like Firemen - in their bunks back at the
barracks. That's how success was achieved in the 19th Century. ( British Empire, American nation,
French Empire. )
Such a scheme is still working wonders in South Korea. Not a whole lot of casualties that way.
Nation building is crazy all across the ummah. They won't suffer it. You would NOT believe
the amount of infrastructure blown up by our Iraqi allies - as a financial hustle.
It took forever for the American Army to figure out that the reason the power system kept crashing
was that the fellow building it up was corrupt and cashing in hugely by re-doing the same work
five times over. He would pull security off the power grid at point X so that his cousins could
dynamite the towers. Yes, he fled when the jig was up.
With his departure, the system started to work. This fiasco was an extreme embarrassement to
the US Army and the Iraqi officials. The perp had his whole clan involved. (!) Yes, this story
is suppressed. Guess why ?
1. The Generals have won. They are Generals.
2. The Military does not win wars, it prolongs the stalemate until the enemy's economy collapses.
3. With no public definition of win (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), what is win?
4. The MIC is very lucrative. There are man, many winners there.
The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can
be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with
this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it.
You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy.
The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural
ideal.
But Islam proscribes democracy, and these lands are emotionally Islamic in the extreme. When
queried, virtually every man demands Shariah law, under Islam.
Changing Afghan culture is what doomed the Soviet 'project.' So the Pentagon was not ever going
to touch cultural issues. This has proved very controvesial as Afghans practice pederasty on a
grand scale. Likewise, the NATO nations were not going to 'touch' the opium trade.
They were also wholly dependent upon Pakistan for logistics. Ultimately, a second rail route
was established at horrific expense across Russia. But no military specific goods could travel
by that route.
So the entire campaign was both necessary - to punish al Qaeda and the Taliban - and unwinnable
in a WWII sense. There never was a thought about expanding the scope of the conflict up to WWII
purportions, of course.
The problem is not that of Pentagon leadership.
The folly starts at the strategic level - straight out of the White House.
It was a mistake for Bush to be so optomistic, grandiose.
It was a mistake for Obama to run away from Iraq. A corps sized garrison force would've permitted
him enough influence to stop Maliki from sabotaging his own army - with crony appointments. (
The Shia simply did not have enough senior talent. So he over promoted his buddies and his tribe.
This set the stage for ghost soldiers and a collapse in morale across entire divisions. )
The correct solution, in 2011, was to endure - like we have in South Korea.
The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing
the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive
draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government.
The correct solution for both was a steady-state, economy of operations mode - with the US
Army largely standing idle in their barracks - letting the locals run all day to day operations.
You end up with the best of all worlds, low American casualties, low interference with the
locals, yet a psychological back-bone for young governments – – who are financial cripples.
At this time, the best route is to cut off Pakistan from all Western aid, and to entirely stop
Pakistani immigration to the West. Islamabad is as much an enemy of the West as Riyadh or Tehran.
This would also help calm Pakistan down, as it's the cultural embarrassment vis a vis the West
that's driving Pakistanis crazy. Let them interact with their blood cousins, the Hindus of India.
That'll be plenty enough modernity for Islamabad and Riyadh.
Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al
Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White
Hats" are a fraud.
Comparing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan with Civil War or such conflicts confuses the issue
and shifts the responsibility from the policy makers to the military. Iraq and Afghanistan are
not wars, they are occupations and as such are unwinnable.
US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under
their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are
dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient
for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them
and install a different, weaker regime.
US imposed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are classic examples of this. Al-Maliki in Iraq
was a marginal figure before becoming prime minister, similar to Karzai in Afghanistan. The new
leaders, Ashraf Ghani as the new Afghan president and Haider Al-Abadi as the Iraqi prime minister
are both ex-pats that only returned to the country after US occupation. Both Al-Maliki and Karzai
have been in power long enough that they were starting to develop a power base and show signs
of breaking away from the US, so they had to be replaced.
Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the
ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being
subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the
regime support, means loss of control over the regime.
So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point
of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American
interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA
built up to effect regime change.
I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for
ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at
Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians.
I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring
a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war.
Ideologues in the administration had other plans. The first being the original sin of the war
itself, supported by a vast industry of defense, finance and media interests who knew opportunity
when they saw it. As for now, what the hell is the mission that the military is supposed to win?
I get the sense we will have our next big, proper war on account of using the military to solve
problems that no military could, like say a GWOT.
Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change
in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military
upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled
across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal,
libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military
officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main
thrust of our attack on this nightmare.
I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people
concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences,
whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative
era.
I sympathize, but with three college aged daughters, I was willing to work for, wait for, another
shot at a Bernie Sanders shaped attack on the system rather than throwing a Trump grenade. Trump
will only disrupt the system by accident, and absolutely unpredictably. His family's interests
are superbly served by the status quo, give or take a tax break or another busted union. It's
madness not to see his run for presidency as a vanity project run amok. If his cabinet and congress
play him right, it's pedal to the metal for the most reactionary, avaricious, vindictive and bellicose
impulses in this country.
Someone might get hurt, and with bugger all to show for it.
Isn't victory the one thing we seek to avoid ? If there were victory anywhere, it would mean "the end", and everyone knows arm sales cannot,
should not, must not, end. After all, it is the only industrial endeavor we are still good at.
Yes, well there's that as well. And that's not an insignificant issue. So again, the witless
proles are fed endless propaganda about terrrrrists and being "safe" in order to keep on keeping
on. Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump
claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements
in this regard.
Have readers seen / thought of the amount of decorations modern US generals and admirals wear
in comparison to their WW2 equivalents? I know Uncle Sam has been in permanent war for a long
time, but does beating up Grenada and Panama count? The other lot to wear a lot of bling are the
welfare junkies occupying Buck House.
Compared to Ike and Bradley, but Beedle wrote a book where he claimed credit for single-handedly
winning the war. West Point is ultimately a self selective group which poses a set of problems.
What kind of kid wants to be a soldier for 30 to 40 years at age 16 when they need to start the
application process? No one accidentally winds up at West Point or the other academies anymore.
What kind of kid in 1810 thought he could carry on for Washington at age 16? I bet he's arrogant
and loves pomp and pageantry.
I'm convinced we need to draft the officer corp from college bound seniors.
Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the
US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government
policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in
"the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance".
Interesting. Rand was enlisted to write up a report almost a decade later on a decision that
was made in 2000 when Little George decided to run for office. Making it appear to have just evolved
into this situation today, no doubt. Remember Rumsfeld's name for the ME war in 2002 was "Odyssey
Dawn". When he first tried to call it a "Crusade" he horrified everyone and had to find something
more genteel. But Odyssey Dawn clearly says it all – it will be a very long war and it will carry
us around the world and we will stagger in confusion but in the end we will find our way. Not
the kind of war you can win by "bombing the shit out of em," as Donald might do. The victory we
will get from Odyssey Dawn will be the benefits of attrition and engagement. But the devastation
we cause will never be worth it.
Bacevich: "Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created
that swamp in the first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides
a rationale for federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government
bigger and more intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes
tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the
swamp, nothing works better than war."
Appreciated Bacevich's three questions, particularly the second. Far past time to come clean
on the real strategy in MENA. The mission and "the job" of military leaders has NOT been to bring
America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion. Instead, there is a strategy to balkanize
that region, keep it in chaos, keep the American people in perpetual wars and "support our troops"
mode, threaten Europeans with a flood of immigrants, assure profits for the MIC and access for
oil majors, and simply keep the military and other agencies occupied. "Winning a war" (and subsequent
occupation) in terms of "bringing conflicts to a prompt and successful conclusion" doesn't appear
to be high on the priority list of those who set the nation's geopolitical and military strategy.
Project for a New American Century indeed.
In terms of "draining the swamp" that war has created, as Bacevich points out, the names mentioned
as prospective appointees as national security adviser and defense secretary are not cause for
optimism that the incoming administration will implement policies that will lead to resolution
rather than perpetuating this mess.
Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less
than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part.
But
many of the same criticisms that Bacevich makes could be, and indeed were, made of the Vietnam
War, which is an odd omission from his article. If anything, the level of generalship then was
probably worse than it is today.
But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq,
for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that
there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent
stupidity of the idea. At what the military call the "operational" level of war, there seems to
have been a complete thought vacuum in Washington. I can imagine successive generals asking the
political leadership "yes, but what exactly do you want me to do " and never getting
a coherent answer.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where
U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest
of death is hardly trivial.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206 A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members
there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the
group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000
My recollection is toward the low end ( towards 200ppl) at the time of GWB addle-minded decision
to pull the relatively modest special forces resources out of Tora Bora in Afghanistan that had
the AlQ Principles in the crosshairs. Instead GWB pursued a bizarre and unrelated non-sequitur
mission of tipping over SH in Iraq– allegedly because Saddam had threatened his Dad?
What was a reasonable response with explicit objectives to remedy a criminal act (as well at
the time with fairly unanimous sympathies of other Countries) could have been accomplished with
a modest Military footprint before getting the fk out of Afghanistan.
Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives.
In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had
been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role
of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking
up their countries??
I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries
with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue
in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External
superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually
gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years.
Yugoslavia was a temporary post-WW II construct based on a personality cult of Tito. When he
died, the real Yugoslavia turned out to be a bunch of tribes that really, really hated each other
and it all went to pieces.
North America is unusual with a huge moat around it other than a little isthmus at the south
end. Even so, there are millions of illegal immigrants that come over that isthmus or cross over
the southern moat (Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean) over the years. Only three countries (Mexico, US,
Canada) are in play and those borders have been stable for over a century. This was after the
US fought a massive civil war to keep that basic structure instead of having another country.
Even so, Quebec has come close to secession, Texas and California mumble about it periodically,
and Mexico effectively has a civil war with drug cartels. However, this is VERY stable compared
to nearly anywhere else in the world, so it leads us to false equivalencies about how other parts
of the world should work.
Putting in corrupt leaders with no popular support doesn't work as we have recently proved
again in Afghanistan and Iraq after having proved it previously in Vietnam and Cuba (pre-Castro).
The Afghanistan outcome may have worked better if the concept of Afghanistan disappeared and NATO
had worked with each region to come up with rational boundaries based on historical tribal alliances.
T.E. Lawrence had drawn a map like that for Iraq c.1918 but it did not fit the colonial power
requirements.. Turkey vs. the Kurds and Iran linking with the Shiites ensured that natural map
wasn't going to happen in 2003 either.
So, it is not clear what victory means in these areas. I think in many cases our concept of
victory is very different than what the locals think is acceptable. It appears that Assad, Russia,
and Iran may be "victorious" in Syria because it is clear they are willing to wipe out the village
to save it. They may find that there is nobody left there to rule though, so they will repopulate
those areas with allies, thereby probably sowing the seeds for another future war.
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition
of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The
places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime
soon
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the
imposition of the Spanish Empire
At least the Spanish had a quantifiable, albeit indefensible objective (resource extraction) that
drove their predatory behavior. Our quizzical form of imperialism is a net resource drag with
fuzzy morphing objectives
Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and
political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them
a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the
Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved.
I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology
(they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism).
In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than
many other empires.
If there's one thing we can hope for in a Trump presidency, it's going to be Trump looking
at the disaster of biblical proportions that continues to unfold in the arena of government contracting.
It doesn't matter which sector his gaze falls upon, he's going to find an appalling failure in
contract negotiation: the F-35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the KC-46, the B-21 (really, just the idea
of cost-plus contracts in general), the SLS, the FCC's Universal Service Fund, the EPA's Superfund,
the Department of Education's "Race to the Top" and "No Child Left Behind" mandates, the ACA,
the dollar value on whatever classified contract the telecommunications industry has to spy on
the American people, the private contractors presently employed by the military to perform its
duties - the list is endless.
The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing,
testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody
wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough.
This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies
and corruption.
potus wants to make money giving speeches after office and also needs $$$$$$$$$$$ for his lieberry.
The merchants of death will hire him for those speeches and send money for lieberry.
The generals of today help the merchants of death make money so when the retire they can go to
work for the merchants of death.
The idea is to never win so there is always an enemy so the merchants of death can continue to
profit.
The easy way to control a country is to have chaos all the time. This makes easier to steal resources
and keep citizens from pulling their own levers of justice. We only have to look at Amerika but
other countries around the globe have the same going on. austerity for all.
The .01% would like to thank you for staying at each others throats.
I matriculated at one of the U.S. Military Service Academies. I had my share of classes on
"War Footing," "War Strategies" and "War, War, War – The Scarlet O'Hara Doctrine." (That last
one was mine and mine alone.)
And then I took the typical post-grad Naval War College assortment of "think-tanked" war symposiums.
All for naught, I must say.
Then came my time in the field. Most of my peers were good soldiers, junior officers and even
a few were leaders. But no one I knew had the stomach for the orders passed down – they were seen
just as watered-down "march-in-place" bullshit until the next wave of senior leadership flew in.
We junior officers were in the field just as much as our men – I'd say half (or more) of my
squadrons were comprised of men and women on their second, third, fourth – or more – tours of
duty. I'm so glad they didn't hear the bullshit we had to listen to. In fact, to this day, my
greatest gift to my men and women was the translation and humanizing effect of taking bullshit
orders and making them palatable for them.
No, we haven't won a war since WWII for many reasons; but, in my humble estimation, the two
biggest culprits are politics and logistics. For one, our politicians don't know what it's like
to wage war, what it's like for the combatants or the civilians seemingly always caught in the
middle. Or what the hell we're going to do in the off-chance that we win one of these puppies.
No, the Generals have not forgotten how to win wars – in fact, there are no generals
alive now who ever had the good fortune to win one. So the Generals don't know how to
win wars.
Oh, by the way – this was during Vietnam. Nothing has changed.
Glad to read a comment from someone with first hand experience. Generals know how to win conventional
wars, where success is measured based on % enemy destroyed or seizing an objective. One could
argue Norman Schwarzkopf won the 1st Gulf War, only difference is that U.S. Generals weren't left
to perform humanitarian functions after. As the author eludes to - but still doesn't stray from
attacking the competence of senior military leaders– without an objective can success be determined?
If one's mission as a Colonel is to lead a Brigade security operation on a Forward Operating Base
for a year, can he/she be successful based on the author's arbitrary standards of success? I would
argue with minimal casualties and no breaches over the year, the mission would be a success, but
these everyday successes are neglected. Accordingly, if a Component Combatant Commander leads
coalition operations in Iraq for two years with 0.05% coalition casualties and no FOBs being breached,
shouldn't that be a success?
It's too bad that General's success can't be measured like their CEO equivalents based on an
quarterly earnings, instead they have to answer to often ill-informed civilian leadership being
judged by vacant metrics and arbitrary standards by those like Bakevich. At least the military's
top executives (Generals) make about 4x their median worker's salary. These men and women could
take far better jobs in the MIC or the Corporate Realm, many I'm sure stay for noble reasons to
lead their servicemembers.
Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal.
"Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must
be incompetent!"
That's so last millennium. We've moved on, don. Smash & grabs are penny ante. Now the game
is Full-Spectrum Dominance.
So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades
(ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad
scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance.
What have they actually accomplished? Hard to say, from my vantage point. "Insufficient data,"
as the old Star Trek computer said.
I know that one of the main goals is to prevent there from ever being any threat to our dominance.
So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're
also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping
the yoke, but we haven't given up.
At the very least, our generals are doing a smashing job of spreading chaos. And then there's
weaponized economics.
Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's
important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades.
Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture
enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check.
On what level are the relevant decisions being made: public discourse, or top security? We're
not privy to the councils where super secret intelligence is discussed and the big decisions are
made. We're out here, on the receiving end of weapons-grade PSYOPS.
So what are we talking about, here? I don't think analyses based in kayfabe will ever arrive
at real insight. Analyzing events in terms of the cover stories meant to dupe us is much ado about
nothing.
The above article was published in 2000. Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy.
Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture?
Are we any closer to FSD, or not?
But I must say, nice job of framing the debate. /s
As far as any hope for change under the new don, I don't see any. He'd have to publicly renounce
FSD, wind down the empire of bases, and find something to do with all those now in its employ,
all while "pivoting" to climate change and rejuvenating the economy, to actually respond to our
actual conditions. The Don is many things, but a martyr for peace and Mother Earth ain't one.
I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for
their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing
a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout."
"But can he do anything about it?" - Don't go to war without a damn good reason seems like
it might be a pretty good start. Despite his typically being all over the map on this – e.g. tough-on-terrorism-and-ISIS
– I found myself repeatedly surprised during the primary season at Trump being the only major-party
candidate – even including Bernie – to consistently talk good sense on Libya, Syria, Ukraine and
Russia.
Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states
who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market.
So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him.
Andrew Bacevich is correct if one wears blinders and looks strictly at DoD Generals. The reality
is that there is a Western Imperium that is intent only on short term profits and has degenerated
into looting its own people and destroying sovereign nations. The Vietnam War showed that colonial
wars could not be fought with a conscript army. The volunteer US Army is too small to put a platoon
of soldiers in every village and town square in Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The endless wars were
unwinnable from the get go. The globalist empire is supremely efficient in looting taxpayers,
trashing Deplorables and spreading regime change campaigns across the world. The forever wars
are being fought by proxy forces with Western military support without a single thought for their
deadly consequences to make money.
Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere.
Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the
methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony,
and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but
only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington.
Every single one.
The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we
say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we
say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass.
I don't understand why we're in the Middle East at all. The US seems taken by the 4000 year
old, 5th grade concept of controlling the "Fertile Crescent." Why don't we just buy the oil we
want at prevailing prices.
Winning for the Boykin-ites is when the Middle East becomes Christian! lol As Smedley said.
"It's a racket."
Whatever, then there's Israel's push to steal Palestinian gas and pipe it thru Syria and Turkey
to markets in the Europe.
Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show
being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control
at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them.
Let's just pull out of the Middle East and do everything we can to de-escalate these wars:
especially to keep the other great powers out too, unless called back in as a true UN peacekeeping
force after the locals have found a way to cool things down.
The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first
neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by
managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling
it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers.
If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look
no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly.
WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain
empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well.
As long as
the dollar is high and Wall Street keeps it that way, there will be no pressure to do anything
different. When people start going hungry and jobless and start getting the bejesus bombed out
of them as happened during the blitz then they begin to understand what war truly means. In America
there has been no war for too long and the people here know nothing about war's sufferings and
privations. There was a little window via the draft during 'Nam' but that's about it. Nothing
will happen until a majority of the populace start hurting real bad.
"... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
"... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
"... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
"... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
"
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength
but out of weakness.
Economist interview, 2 August 2014
"
But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't
rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60
years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively
regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly
nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think
history is on our side.
State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015
"
Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were
reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful
display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America
that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters.
That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)
Part Two: Maybe not
Washington, 18 October 2016
"
The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that
is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part
of the problem.
Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide
Berlin, 17 November 2016
"
With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into
office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region
and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the
world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.
BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters
out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret)
history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the
diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon
is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner'
world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia
and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then
picks off the last one standing.
Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the
best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama
of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.
Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his
own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?
What a lesson this man has been.
Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
Death by drone, without trial
Death by military misadventure in the middle east
Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending
And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.
At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass
"constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment,
a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant
war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!
For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not.
Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like
in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who
served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally (
Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly
recommend to use the list
that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It
includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's
Naked Capitalism ,
Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites
like Ron Paul and
AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like
Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream)
news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert
Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as
Truthdig and
Truth-out.org ."
Extended list is here
It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted
site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site
definitely smells with
McCarthyism -- the practice
of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which
was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the
USSR" type of sites.
But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian.
After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus
and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into
the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called
the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may
not know about their existence.
The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become
"fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability
with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their
alternative competitors
labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted
as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend
legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American
public. Out-going US president Barack Obama
was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the
several instances where he himself
lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest
US news source and one of the longest running
daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives
to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and
across the web."
PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an
independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so
much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds
and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy,
and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda
- particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information
connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find,
act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts
to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political
and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own
specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).
We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another
name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public
discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and
decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.
paulcraigroberts.org --
this is the fierce anti-establishment site which was created by former highly placed
official in Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts.
ronpaulinstitute.org --
major libertarian anti-war site of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, who in the past was
the only candidate with realistic and anti-neocon foreign policy platorm. Highly recommended.
But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011
revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill
supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of
distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the
Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.
The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward
Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem
of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.
The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence
chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi
Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an
unclassified article published in 2008.
At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone
surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals."
The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main
tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in
Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently
a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.
Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring
of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's
system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected
insurgents.
Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on
providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real
time whether to carry out a strike on it.
But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him
as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun
to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the
night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids
increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average
of
more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.
At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization.
They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.
In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized
Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called
"link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to
see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of
the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became
the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.
Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell
phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed
or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence
also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held
in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.
What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of
the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers.
As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in
protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence,
you don't get the names of those targeted."
There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed
as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there
was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell
phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion
of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union
special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world
on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan
"have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."
Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated
that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that
year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts
dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number --
meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed
in JSOC's operations in 2010.
The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher.
In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban"
had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document
of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which
I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility
at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of
their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed
for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But
many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well.
basarov •
9 hours ago
Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000
US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general,
under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a
3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?
We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine
excreta and caviar.
And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue
to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are
ALL guilty!
Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his
team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created
the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created
the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts
its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm.
Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.
"... Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices " ..."
"... "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one." ..."
"... "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria." ..."
"... "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake." ..."
"... "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today." ..."
"... "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens." ..."
"... "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed." ..."
"... "It is the sense of Congress that– ..."
"... (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000 ..."
"... civilians " ..."
"... "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children." ..."
"... "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses." ..."
"... "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ..."
"... "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ..."
"... "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests." ..."
"... "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc." ..."
"
Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills
in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices "
In this case, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for a"No Fly Zone" which
is an act of war. This is obviously controversial and it seems clear the resolution should have been
debated and discussed under normal rules with a normal amount of Congressional presence and debate.
The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without debate was articulated
by the bill's author and ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, who said:
"We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across
the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one."
The current urgency may be related to the election results, since Trump has spoken out against
"regime change" foreign policy. As much as they are critical of Obama for not doing more, Congressional
neoconservatives are concerned about the prospect of a President who might move toward peace and
away from war.
The Caesar Fraud
HR5732 is titled the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act". Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed
Royce (R-Ca) explained that the resolution is named after "the brave Syrian defector known to
the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the
prisons of Syria."
In reality, the Caesar story was a
grand deception involving the CIA with funding from Qatar to sabotage the 2014 Geneva negotiations.
The 55,000 photos which were said to show 11,000 torture victims have never been publicly revealed.
Only a tiny number of photos have been publicized.
However, in 2015 Human Rights Watch was granted access to view the entire set. They revealed that
almost one half the photos show the opposite of what was claimed: instead of victims tortured by
the Syrian government, they actually show dead Syrian soldiers and civilian victims of car bombs
and other terror attacks!
The "Caesar" story, replete with masked 'defector', was one of the early propaganda hoaxes regarding
Syria.
False Claims that the US has been doing nothing
One of the big lies regarding Syria is that the US has been inactive. Royce says:
"The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set
a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been
sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests
are at stake."
The ranking Democrat Eliot Engel said:
"Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in
Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if
we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today."
This is nonsense. The US was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups
beginning in late 2011. When the Qadaffi government was toppled in Fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the
theft of the Libyan armories and shipment of weapons to Syrian armed opposition as documented in
the
Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.
These weapons transfers were secret. For the public record it was acknowledged that the US was
supplying communications equipment to the armed opposition while Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supplying
weaponry. This is one reason that Saudi purchases of weapons skyrocketed during this time period;
they were buying weapons to replace those being shipped to the armed opposition in Syria. It was
very profitable for US arms manufacturers.
Huge weapons transfers to the armed opposition in Syria have continued to the present. This past
Spring, Janes Defense
reported the details of a U.S. delivery of 2.2 million pounds of ammunition, rocket launchers
and other weaponry to the armed opposition.
Claims that the US has been inactive are baseless. In reality the US has done everything short
of a direct attack on Syria. And the US military is starting to cross that barrier. On September
17 the US air coalition did a direct attack on the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor, killing 80 Syrian soldiers
and enabling ISIS to launch an attack on the position.
Claims that it was a "mistake" are highly dubious.
The claims by Congressional hawks that the US has been 'inactive' in the Syrian conflict are part
of the false narrative suggesting the US must "do something" which leads to a No Fly Zone and full
scale war. Ironically, these calls for war are masked as "humanitarian". And never do the proponents
bring up the case of Libya where the US and NATO "did something": destroyed the government and left
chaos.
Congress as a Fact-Free House of Propaganda
With only a handful of representatives present and no debate, the six Congress members engaged
in unrestrained propaganda and misinformation. The leading Democrat, Eliot Engel, said "We're
going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of
his citizens."
That number is way off anyone's charts.
Rep Kildee said "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly
half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed."
The official text of the resolution says:
"It is the sense of Congress that– (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths
of more than 400,000 civilians "
The above accusations – from "millions of citizens" to "half a million" to "400,000 civilians"
– are all preposterous lies.
Credible
estimates of casualties in the Syrian conflict range from 300,000 to 420,000. The opposition
supporting Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the documented 2011-2016 death toll as follows:
killed pro Syrian forces – 108,000
killed anti government forces – 105,000
killed civilians – 89,000
In contrast with Congressional and media claims, civilians comprise a minority of the total death
count and the largest casualty group is those fighting in defense of the the Syrian state. These
facts are ignored and never mentioned because they point to the reality versus the propaganda narrative
which allows the USA and allies to continue funding terrorism and a war of aggression against Syria.
The Congressional speakers were in full self-righteous mode as they accused the Syrian government
of "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture
and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children."
A naive listener would never know that the Syrian government is primarily fighting the Syrian
branch of Al-Qaeda, including thousands of foreigners supplied and paid by foreign governments.
The Congressional speakers go on to accuse the Syrian military of "targeting" hospitals, schools
and markets. A critical listener might ask why they would do that instead of targeting the Al-Qaeda
terrorists and their allies who launch dozens and sometimes hundreds of
hell cannon missiles into government held Aleppo every day.
The Congressional propaganda fest would not be complete without mention of the "
White
Helmets ". House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce said:
"We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are
the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that
have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over
600 doctors and nurses."
This is more Congressional nonsense.
There are no nurses or doctors associated with the White Helmets. The organization was created
by the USA and UK and heavily promoted by a "
shady PR firm ". The White Helmets operate solely in areas controlled by Nusra and associated
terrorist groups. They do some rescue work in the conflict zone but their main role is in the information
war
manipulating public opinion.
The White Helmets actively promote US/NATO intervention through a No Fly Zone. Recently the White
Helmets has become a major source of claims of innocent civilian victims in east Aleppo. Given the
clear history of the White Helmets, these claims should be treated with skepticism. What exactly
is the evidence?
The same skepticism needs to be applied to video and other reports from the Aleppo Media Center.
AMC is a creation of the
Syrian Expatriates Organization whose address on K Street, Washington DC indicates it is a US
marketing operation.
What is really going on?
The campaign to overthrow the Syrian government is failing and there is possibility of a victory
for the Syrian government and allies. The previous flood of international jihadi recruits has dried
up. The Syrian Army and allies are gaining ground militarily and negotiating settlements or re-locations
with "rebels" who previously terrorized Homs, Darraya (outer Damascus) and elsewhere.
In Aleppo, the Syrian army and allies are tightening the noose around the armed opposition in
east Aleppo. This has caused alarm among neoconservative lawmakers devoted to Israel, Saudi Arabia
and U.S. empire. They are desperate to prevent the Syrian government from finally eliminating the
terrorist groups which the West and allies have promoted for the past 5+ years.
"Pro Israel" groups have been major campaigners for the passage of HR5732. The name of Simon
Wiesenthal is even invoked in the resolution. With crocodile tears fully flowing, Rabbi Lee Bycel
wrote "
Where is the Conscience of the World? " as he questioned why the "humanitarian" HR5732 was not
passed earlier.
Israeli interests are one of the primary forces sustaining and promoting the conflict. Syria is
officially at war with Israel which continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights; Syria has been
a key ally of the Lebanese resistance; and Syria has maintained its alliance with Iran.
In 2010 Secretary of State
Clinton urged Syria to break relations with Hezbollah, reduce relations with Iran and come to
settlement with Israel. The Syrian refusal to comply with these Washington demands was instrumental
in solidifying Washington's
hostility .
Congressional proponents of HR5732 make clear the international dimension of the conflict. Royce
explains:
"It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it
is the IRGC fighters from Iran ."
Engel echoes the same message:
"Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah
forces ."
These statements are in contrast with the analysis of some writers who believe Israel is not deeply
opposed to the Damascus government. For example Phyllis Bennis recently
wrote that belief in an "arc of resistance" has been "long debunked" and that "the Syrian
regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests."
It's remarkable that this faulty analysis continues to be propounded. In words and deeds Israel
has made its position on Syria crystal clear. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren
explained in an interview:
"We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who
weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel
is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad
regime as the keystone in that arc."
If the Syrian government and allies continue to advance in Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, outer Damascus
and the south, the situation will come to a head. The enemies of Syria – predominately the USA, Gulf
Countries, NATO and Israel – will come to a decision point. Do they intervene directly or do they
allow their regime project to collapse?
HR5732 is an effort to prepare for direct intervention and aggression.
One thing is clear from the experience of Libya: Neoconservatives do not care if they leave a
country in chaos. The main objective is to destabilize and overthrow a government which is too independent.
If the USA and allies cannot dominate the country, then at least they can destroy the contrary authority
and leave chaos.
What is at stake in Syria is whether the USA and allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are able
to destroy the last secular and independent Arab country in the region and whether the US goal of
being the sole superpower in the world prevails.
The rushed passing of HR5732 without debate is indicative that:
– "regime change" proponents have not given up their war on Syria;
– they seek to escalate US aggression;
– the US Congress is a venue where blatant lies are said with impunity and where violent actions
are advanced behind a cynical and amoral veneer of "humanitarianism" and crocodile tears.
Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US
"humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.
... ... ...
In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection
of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and
are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges
Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.
This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle,
perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display
of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011
Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is
credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian
crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led
to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.
The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both
fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that
the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued
in a must-read Libya analysis
at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.
Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building
Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear
weapons and "be greeted as liberators,"
said Vice President
Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less,
said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a
"cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became
increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and
investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before
U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.
Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's
win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm
has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again
unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that
beleaguered nation's woes.
We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow
distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble,
reflecting on Libya,
contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions
often have the opposite effect."
And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity
of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint
abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling,
as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naďve it is to believe that
our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week
and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico
, Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.
That "Navy ship that broke down in the Panama Canal" - it cost $4.4 *billion* dollars. And
there is a second one just finishing construction with a third coming in at the basement bargain
price of $3.7B:
The Zumwalt cost more than $4.4bn and was commissioned in October in Maryland. It also suffered
a leak in its propulsion system before it was commissioned. The leak required the ship to remain
at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia longer than expected for repairs.
The ship is part of the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works in more than
25 years.
The second Zumwalt-class destroyer, which also cost more than $4.4bn, was christened in
a June ceremony during which US Rep Bruce Poliquin called it an "extraordinary machine
of peace and security". The third ship is expected to cost a bit less than $3.7bn.
Well, I understand that these are magnificent "machines of peace and security" but it seems
rather a shame that some of that money couldn't be spent on delivering, say, clean water to residents
of Flint and elsewhere.
US Dems and Republicans both:
Money for ENDLESS WAR - no problem!
Money for housing, health, education, environment - how the hell can we find money for that?
River
Given that the ammo is one million a shell, $3.7 billion is a bargain of sorts.
It isn't a shame that money couldn't be used elsewhere. It's a God Damn outrage.
PlutoniumKun
Well, not quite a million, but $800,000 a shell according to Stars and Stripes magazine. And each
ship is supposed to carry 600 of them. The Zumwelt is basically a very expensive mobile artillery
ship, with no clear military purpose. The Navy have pretty much confirmed this by cancelling the
system (there were originally to be 38 of them). The worst thing is that despite it having no clear
purpose and costing vast sums of money, nobody seems willing to call anyone to account for having
blown billions on an entirely worthless defence system.
"... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is
it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
"... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of
the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way
to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
"... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy
of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of
state. (5) ..."
"... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
..."
"... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to
the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United
States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail
to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key
functions in his administration. ..."
"... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one
of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and
the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
"... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
"... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle
East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned
them.
It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton,
Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations
and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values,
it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.
Who is to blame?
Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism?
Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.
Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the
question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing
discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is
projecting its own idealism. (2)
The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these
peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's
Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American
embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?
Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they
now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity
as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary
to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?
Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian
intervention become punishment rather than help?
The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions
of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are
a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)
What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign
policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary
of state. (5)
The end of interventionism?
But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?
Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican
Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases
of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy
and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene."
(6)
But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic.
At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet.
Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides
an excellent example.
Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard
to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the
United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they
fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied
key functions in his administration. (8)
Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and
one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.
These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There
appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.
The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist
policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise.
Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests,
unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase
the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as
the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate
to intervene.
In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements
by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of
performing his office.
No one knows what the future will bring.
Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage,
Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.
"... Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful decision." ..."
"... Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?" ..."
"... Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very confusing." ..."
Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was
saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose
out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping coordinate
arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise
of Islamic extremism?"
Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job, but my job was to ensure that the accuracy
of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be, and I will tell you,
it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and we still had decisions to be made before there
was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011, it was very clear what we were going to face."
Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time, you
knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who
wasn't listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful
decision."
Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al-Qaeda
and the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing, You have to really ask the President
what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very, very
confusing."
Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
Interesting idea of defense against cultural revolution... Infiltration...
Notable quotes:
"... "In 1999 [Surkov] was invited to join Yeltsin's presidential administration and began carving out a central role for himself as the architect of Russia's new `post-factual politics', eventually becoming a special advisor to Putin. (..) ..."
Your description sounds almost exactly like what Vladislav Surkov is doing in Russia. Surkov
does things like pay fascists and anti-fascists to stage rallies then he announces that he's doing
this.
The result? Confusion among Putin's enemies about what's real and what's not, about what's
actually happening and what's just theater. It becomes impossible to enact a strategy against
Putin's policies when no one is sure what's really going on.
"In 1999 [Surkov] was invited to join Yeltsin's presidential administration and began carving
out a central role for himself as the architect of Russia's new `post-factual politics', eventually
becoming a special advisor to Putin. (..)
"According to Russian novelist Eduard Limonov, Surkov's stage management of power struggles
has `turned Russia into a wonderful postmodernist theatre, where he experiments with old and new
political models.'"
Is Trump just in it for the attention and is ready to outsource everything else?
James Wimberley 11.21.16 at 3:44 pm
Nicolas Sarkozy, as President of France, had a strategy of keeping his opponents off balance
by constantly announcing new policies and initiatives. This is not an exact match but at least
a parallel to Trump's manipulation of the media by a stream of novel outrageous statements and
tweets.
Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading
labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless
torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer
and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.
"Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration,
charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather
than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline
that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said.
'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason
to fight us even harder.'"
"When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to
cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."
Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise
drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone
other than war profiteers?
From the same report:
"Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied:
'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"
So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a
man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States
rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who
believe that the wars of the past
15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other
experts as well.
Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:
"What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more
bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for
the other solutions."
Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to
the creation of ISIS:
"Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion
and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there
is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going
into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."
So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the
weapons industry?
Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits
to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:
"The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by
JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the
New York Times and
Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely'
helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation,
ISIL."
Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible
consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect
all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except
that . . .
"Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi
detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable
History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable
for many, many years to come.'"
Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts
to those Trump has also articulated:
"Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo,
which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality
in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed
that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration'
didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned
a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"
Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could
lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to
ignore it.
Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will
"killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning
Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against
his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?
Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going
forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but
Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international
norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny
and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something
that we can set aside.
"... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
"... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
"... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
"... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
"... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
"... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian
administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz,
Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard
B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's
undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was
chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader
of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is
more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November
2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would
have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide
security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and
another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and
a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military
to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told
biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007,
Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers
look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it
and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to
establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served.
Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had
thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and
Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for
what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this
episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit
their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier.
For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we
conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means
to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they
did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership,
"Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild
the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed
up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of
the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.
Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner
in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when
challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War,
Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted
Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained
good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once
again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November
2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They
turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The
decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the
differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing
that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost
no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the
regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the
same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby,
Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and
to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that
the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in
mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend
money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration
makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes
policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the
case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique
importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's
fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge"
of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama
fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart
to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to
this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with
the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda
and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did
or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged
there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding
policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer,
Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one
has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic
State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq
War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active,
ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies,"
it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who
have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president,
then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now
that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration
unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level
appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar
instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences
have been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to
Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had
been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor;
Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer
replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career
diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal
experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take
charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer
issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified"
the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath
party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers
lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The
Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic
State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed
to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant
colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification
and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to
fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York
Times reported in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely
regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers
and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men
to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead
of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What
is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted.
In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved
a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept
them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings,
one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification
policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi
military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush
later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't
happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In
2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all
the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be
in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written,
it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they
served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi,
who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by
Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility
for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his
own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American
presidency to suit their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year
earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June
2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts
of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and
that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's
leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best
way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad
with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however,
showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and
by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration
in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked
expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills
and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected
him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each
comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington
Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's,
which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security
services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his
part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case
for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen
years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith
to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers.
A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted
by the Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his
own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As
the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of
the people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay
Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser
for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic
and arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough,
in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe,
a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed
strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect
to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer,
Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed
up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was
discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do
this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12,
Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the
request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the
Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting
in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But
this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith
attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army
back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party
structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned
over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding
the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion
of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed,"
Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong
impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps
Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation
for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite
the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their
garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran
adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing
the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were
communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the
NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame:
to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the
Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was
in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a
punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't
understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration
is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.)
On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper
exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But
the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew
much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter
and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with
Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American
military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed,
"the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government."
And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of
the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I
don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe
told PBS's "Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job
from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington
end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output.
And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel
was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't
know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post
that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other
words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year,
and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in
March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the
disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including
the apparent lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said,
"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained,
"The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion,
and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president
responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance,"
musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had
almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall
of the regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in
the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith,
Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets,
and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals
that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people
in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not
spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the
administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors
takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president.
But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has
a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for
them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other
party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's
2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after
President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the
Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than
Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically
with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against
al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what
the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil
war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification
and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces
that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no
one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about
the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making
in the Iraq War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated,
active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of
his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion.
But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible
to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally
stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration.
These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was
not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he
was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both
men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.
Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies,
often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with
someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought
they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some
(Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.
Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away,
and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free
pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo
of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money
floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global
consequences.
It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption,
and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.
Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.
I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war
and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were
not President Bush's."
You're joking?
How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?
Bush was President!
The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA
Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation
in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with
them."
John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy
at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush
himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."
But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the
President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and
that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's
chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies
and to fire all of those responsible.
But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.
He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.
Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed
the orders to stand.
I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies
that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.
I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was
completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked
like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's
government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not
the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government,
including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people
and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan.
And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were
dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression,
but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..
Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.
So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people
that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed
up, is that it?
Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line,
and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as
advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence
as a leader.
"Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for
progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for
oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January
10, 2008.
Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification
law.
I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.
After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really
speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined
up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy
– a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would
surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.
So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people",
instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served
on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate
Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support
for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan
threatened a veto of his bill).
The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby,
Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign
policy.
Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those
PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken.
The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article.
They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing
him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text
("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this
is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and
perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired
by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that
the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made
governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and
many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were
happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and
the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state,
a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late
in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history
was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to
develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be
questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it.
I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented
by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse
for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.
This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong
enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did
without giving them the resistance and or rejections.
By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article
for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of
these decisions. It's a very compelling read.
If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's
and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure
pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military
and government), then you already know about all of this.
I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit
of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks
of PNAC.
The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have
no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).
Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading
the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's
Cabinet?
The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.
Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started.
The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html
There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of
multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged
with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.
I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative
non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact?
Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can
somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who
was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in
Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight
Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that
would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already
interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.
The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended
the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where
he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the
Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some
of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously,
Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions
to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an
interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.
William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many
functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy
to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition
out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."
I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:
(1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it."
(2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were
inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."
Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means
one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can
resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only
a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase
idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't
have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the
misguided nature of our overall mission.
It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic
from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.
After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had
been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into
both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished
economically in the coming decades.
The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a
new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a
country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect
laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale
of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with
little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly
prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication
to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and
experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws,
to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues
would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war
economic successes of Germany and Japan.
Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.
"You're the one we voted for
So you must take the blame
For handing out authority
To men who were insane"
And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out
that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".
"Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more
critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national
security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness
for the White House. "
"While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect
of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little
experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "
"Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor,
having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico.
He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably
rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."
"I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."
I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for
my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:
1. the long term application of the PA
2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting
the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special
Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.
3. Not invading Iraq at all
I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being
a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative
thought would have steered a far different course.
_____________________
I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies.
To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.
The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must
ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department
mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability.
And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic
to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their
choices by blaming the upper echelons.
The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to
the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on
the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The
general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the
US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take
offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH,
but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no
fly lists".
Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates
authority.
As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style
within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't
comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this
article in my view.
I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company.
But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial
disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.
The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here
I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is
not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small
number of choices were undermined by others.
While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced
by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number
of democrats and liberals.
Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not
have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.
So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use
of the military in both campaigns.
The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not
absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.
I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical
wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with
GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.
Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you,
it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer
to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed,
I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am
appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three
separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are
the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take
the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and
try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will
be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi.
And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the
presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but
with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
@Connecticut Farmer If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.
It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for
awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border
dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )
OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to
want to link Benghazi to everything.
"Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war,
period.
As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of
either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk
of sharing
in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a
viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.
@ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept
labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions
were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."
You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers
Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership
in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.
But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means
by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that
particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher
corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect
them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially
and put in place a state-run health care system.
baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions,
which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated
into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries
flourished economically in the coming decades."
Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?
Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls
is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism,
Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular,
as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other
economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing
the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic
stimulus.
Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the
socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is
required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur
that would destroy a free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
@Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included
price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers
of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.
OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's
ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good
for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which
creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want.
The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue
their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is
that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred
theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are,
in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist
environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put
into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be
rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth
a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every
policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put
into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no
ownership restrictions.
Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:
I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming
administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair?
By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign
policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that
a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last
eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that
the risks have been mitigated?
@Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.
I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries
to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong
welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies
(and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.
baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's
occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the
Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas
present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian
working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft
by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism.
It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
"Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to
link Benghazi to everything."
I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical
warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".
Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too
late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.
The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to
the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate
responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed
dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They
dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on
the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response
to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.
The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of
events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet
videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.
On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective
action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has
been held accountable in either admin.
Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability
for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the
WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.
In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very
well.
Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it
is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of
administrations".
It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie
that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the
crazies in the basement".
Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning
up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they
got it.
It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign
policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived,
only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.
@EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus
accountability for tactics.
The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and
one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for
the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.
Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran
and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was
the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether
or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a
strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any
communications with Saddam on that point.
Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State
Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody
in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of
course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was
due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.
To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats
making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy,
and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused
on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather
than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the
first place.
That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover
for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.
Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime
would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would
happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should
have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.
________________
"The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed,
shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."
In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion
was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall
veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters
worse.
And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously
so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state
they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse
me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of
the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.
AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head
having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services
would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty
and basic policing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions
and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt
that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate
established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women
playingthat role.
"... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
"... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
"... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
"... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
"... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
"... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
"... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
"... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
"... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
"... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
"... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
"... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
"... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
"... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
"... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by
amateurs.
euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected?
Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't
have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the
amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are
the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have
destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies
that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially
if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European
dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand
that, we'll also get to face it."
Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot"
class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters
next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless,
hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo
chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers,
that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake
"expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political
tsunami in modern history.
One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully
theirs.
... ... ...
Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
"It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way –
doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying
accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New
York Times – but, in the end, he won.
"That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television
and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything
and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised –
and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under
the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.
"With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was
born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions
of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists
and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll
get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."
euronews
"There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."
Beppe Grillo
"We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We
want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.
"We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working
for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen
if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage
all that."
euronews
"Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo
"This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're
not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs
"And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the
professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all
the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.
"If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely
misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we
have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge
change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."
euronews
"Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits:
as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras,
in Greece, for example "
Beppe Grillo
"Yes, I agree."
euronews
"Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack.
Why?"
Beppe Grillo
"Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions
or by making agreements with others.
"From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called
Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional
and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even
suggest laws in their own name.
"This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have
done it."
euronews
"You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly
changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"
Beppe Grillo
"The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament,
there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.
"We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward
the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the
European parliament."
euronews
"One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning
certain politicians.
"President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence
from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"
Beppe Grillo
"I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former
minister of a tax haven."
euronews
"You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo
"Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's
what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
euronews "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"
Beppe Grillo
"It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've
always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea
of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.
"I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of
a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.
"In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising
a clear 'yes-no' referendum."
euronews
"That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn.
Many people's views have done u-turns."
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."
euronews
"Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe?
Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."
Beppe Grillo
"Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."
euronews
"Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."
Beppe Grillo
"Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants
to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles,
we'll be there."
euronews
"In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who
are you supporting?"
Beppe Grillo "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions
about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."
euronews
"Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in
December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."
Beppe Grillo
"It's already lost for him."
euronews
"If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as
a consequence, neither are we.
"From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent
they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform
the Senate to make the process quicker?"
euronews
"Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"
Beppe Grillo
"No, no. I was never in the race. Never."
euronews
"So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official
role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"The time is fast approaching."
euronews
"Really? A projection?"
Beppe Grillo
"People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."
BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM
euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has
actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.
Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM
Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world
are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having
previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic
tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...
Obama:
Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
"Helped" Libya
Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo
Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow
your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.
Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM
Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]-
technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!
NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM
"The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU
DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so
WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!
As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's
ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"
Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving
their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY
angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.
Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed
"Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.
lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM
You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."
tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM
Which experts do you mean Beppe ?
All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.
Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )
Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )
Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)
Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )
Blair ( war criminal )
and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )
caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM
It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start.
In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans)
can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo
add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.
The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith
is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.
Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
Notable quotes:
"... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
"... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
"... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
"... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
"... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
"... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
"... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
"... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
"... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
When I had heard
in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee,
I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence
community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director
of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this
up.
The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts'
conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the
message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that
spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western
universities.
If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East
on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book
as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.
There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration
with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining
in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events.
That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this
is not a seminal work on
General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly
in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely
define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama
administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.
He supports what he can
tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on
the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us
is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand
that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.
Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize
it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years.
General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and
began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster.
Please buy and read this book!
Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few
Others Do.
To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently
retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms
and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting
sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages,
right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched
and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his
book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As
Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work
appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as
the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think
that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this
is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and
serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points,
which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential
read.
In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and
proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions.
Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately
exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking
of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name.
As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all
too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their
careers.
In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home
and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in
which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter
also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their
mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention
to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.'
Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this,
he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and
a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this
capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage"
on p. 154.)
Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil
war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces.
In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again,
this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures
that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons
of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking
about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric
Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General
Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was
bureaucratic in nature.
The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together
the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea,
Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection
to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out
how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses
how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy"
(p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.
General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually
unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to
the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his
army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan).
He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as
al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine,
General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion
itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that
every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.
Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although
such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn
demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in
the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global
American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy.
General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as
I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts
with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any
unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating
what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that
describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages
127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian
political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the
more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort
to undermine them.
The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works
of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that,
coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment.
Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection
is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence
of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this
book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.
It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that
the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.
The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent
makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away
are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.
My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC
in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and
during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available
for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive
of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.
At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly
lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from
spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.
Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should
read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't
like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at
war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is
not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.
We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no
longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre
of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have
won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for
the good cause of freedom.
My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General
Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!
I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical
Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations
that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world,
ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around
radical interpretations of the Qur'an.
Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there
will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a
religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic
world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire
Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.
If
you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now"
, by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC
Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the
reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion
can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as
apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is
certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative
evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals
and reactionaries of political Islam.
One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more
that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics,"
whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with
the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."
As if there is any relationship
to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where
they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a
label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing
more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of
setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence
of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless,
as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors
who's authority is founded on political Islam.
In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated
via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional
occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems
unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end
state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism
to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological
end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy
seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration
of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems
more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment
to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long
war.
Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes
that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical
MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure,
a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could
see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level
active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind,
Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy
and at most an operational strategy.
Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at
a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions
made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.
We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this
time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states
who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique
perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.
Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is
as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective
through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action
he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.
The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy
in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:
1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.
In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam
because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that
our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy
is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled
reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five
I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral
compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists
thrives.
Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have
the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart
rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who
will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an
outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?
As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation
needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as
described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.
* * *
In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an
educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As
a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the
problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and
General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its
Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.
Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his
views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight
ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot
of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence
is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what
is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind
of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which
is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the
difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical
knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems
unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of
Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence
has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his
world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell
him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic
background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected
and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt
with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.
This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way
with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union
and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the
wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years,
right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of
that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in
this craziness.
To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source
of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches
as well as armed force.
I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where
is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that
Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That
ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that
understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic
abilities.
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those
already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead
to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment
I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden
with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to
chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared
intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job.
He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back
from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against
Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states
and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts
to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up
the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run
by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible.
Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The
neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President
was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result
in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants
a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and
buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a
placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran,
and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all
the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign
pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military),
the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim
that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't
attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only
check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a
brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow
the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump
protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color
revolution'.
"... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
"... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
"... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
"... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has
been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic
figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.
What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to
finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything
will fall apart.
And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will
be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or
even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar
than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant
comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.
Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved
into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous
internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the
1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s
that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland,
with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated,
nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.
It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark
Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost
this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite,
or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.
If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk
of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.
And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing
for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.
Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the
last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's
wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim
of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.
Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.
"... Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up ..."
"... And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments". ..."
"... Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time... ..."
Premature babies in Aleppo have been removed from their incubators after air strikes destroyed
hospitals across the city, prompting condemnation of the Syrian government and Russia by the US
and the UN.
Harrowing video footage shows tiny babies being removed from their incubators in a smoke-filled
ward, with nurses reduced to tears as they detach the tubing providing support and wrap the babies
in blankets.
Now where have I heard a similar story before? .
Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up or, failing that, send a drone flying off
to Moscow so as to zap the Evil One and any bystanders in his vicinity?
"The Syrian regime and its allies, Russia in particular, bear responsibility for the immediate
and long-term consequences these actions have caused in Syria and beyond" - said Susan Rice, of
course.
And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil
Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments".
Aleppo must be one of the most intensely scrutinized area on earth – drones, satellites, radars
and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?)
exclusively relies on the "Observer" dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister
Russian air strikes. The DOS needs a 'tard wrangler for these various groups.
The other possibility is that Russia has perfected stealth on every wavelength including visible
light and have zero-noise jet engines.
Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war,
babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works
on the suckers every time...
"... as sheltered intellectuals, often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the world, like the old Roman proconsuls. ..."
"... But more unending wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become destructively bankrupting. ..."
Even before the Iraq War,
John Bolton was
a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda. Long ago I wrote about him,
in "John Bolton and U.S. Lawlessness,"
"The Bush administration's international lawlessness did not come from nowhere. Its intellectual
foundations were laid long before 9/11 by neoconservatives." I quoted Bolton, "It is a big mistake
to for us to grant any validity to international law because over the long term, the goal of those
who think that it really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States." In fact
I set up a web page, the John
Bolton File , containing various links about him and the neocons.
Nearly all of Donald Trump's appointments to his transition team are very encouraging. Indeed,
I have known many of them for years. But he could undermine his whole agenda by allowing neocons
back into their former staffing and leadership role over Republican foreign policy. The
New York Times reported how many are now scrambling to get back into their old dominant
positions. And now National Review , which supported all the disasters in Iraq, has come out
to promote Bolton for secretary of state.
I have written about the neocons for many years. Their originators were former leftists who
later became anti-communists. After the collapse of communism, they provided the intellectual
firepower for hawks and imperialists who wanted an aggressive American foreign policy. Having lived
and done business for many years in the Third World, I thought they would only bring about disasters
for America. What especially interested me was their almost total lack of experience in and knowledge
about the outside world, particularly Asia and Latin America. I even set up a web page called
War Party Neoconservative
Biographies as I researched their education and experience.
Brilliant academics as many of them were, their "foreign" experience was at best a semester
or two in London or, for the more daring, some studies in Paris or, for the Jewish ones, a summer
on a kibbutz in Israel.
They are above all Washington insiders. John Bolton is very typical. A summa cum laude graduate
of Yale, then Yale Law School, time with a top Washington law firm, and then various academic and
political appointments, but no foreign living or work experience.
Also, as sheltered intellectuals,
often in cluttered small offices, many found it exciting to imagine themselves ruling much of the
world, like the old Roman proconsuls.
Long ago
Peter Viereck explained them with
his observation about the vicarious "lust of many intellectuals for brute violence." No wonder they
urged Bush on to his disastrous war and occupation policies. Even before Iraq they were first urging
dominance over Russia and then military confrontation with China, when a U.S. spy plane was collided
by a Chinese fighter plane. It wasn't just the Arab world which was in their sights.
I write about all this based on my own experience of studying in Germany and France, working 15
years in South America, and speaking four languages fluently.
Trump appointments so far are really showing his focus upon getting America back on track with
faster economic growth, which has been so stunted by Obama's runaway regulatory regime. To understand
their costs, see analysis in the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
"Ten Thousand Commandments."
But more unending
wars will continue to sap America's strength and prejudice the world's former goodwill toward our
nation. Empires all eventually make a transition from where they are profitable to when they become
destructively bankrupting. Few would now doubt that America has crossed this threshold. When it costs
us a million dollars per year per man to field combat infantry in unending wars, we will face
economic ruin just like happened with the Roman Empire.
The risk is that Trump's foreign-affairs transition team becomes infiltrated. Much of the transition
is being run out of the Heritage Foundation, which was a big promoter of the Iraq War.
Pence is great on domestic issues but not on foreign policy. Although a Catholic, he also is
very close to those evangelicals who believe that supporting Israel's expansion will help to speed
up the second coming of Christ and, consequently, Armageddon. One must assume that he, together with
the military-industrial complex, is plugging for the neoconservatives again to work their agenda
upon America and the world.
Jon Basil Utley is publisher of The American Conservative .
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to
what Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into
a
racket ." It's a racket.
Notable quotes:
"... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
"... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
"... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
"... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
"... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
"... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
"... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
"... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions.
Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the
mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of
tribe
,
nation , even
race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but
not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational
but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.
This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely
astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's
because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some
sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be
conquered by Russians.
But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who
harbored messianic fantasies about
"global democracy" and and America as the first
"universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had
uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about
America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American
Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.
I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked
three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"
I'm going to quote from John Kasich:
blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe
we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although
he did
favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends
in the minority community."
That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.
Marco Rubio said:
it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially
at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's
about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America
is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.
Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic,
classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic,
Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."
In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:
I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse
our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our
country.
Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and
various Republican politicians. Somebody called
John Hart , who writes a
thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded
Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:
Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's
modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't
about conserving; it's about growth.
"Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember
1957 . As I said,I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional
phase. And now it's over.
Why did it end? After
Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us
immigration patriots from
National
Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were
a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was
jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the
neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their
own ethnic
agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want
to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and
also because they have
big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.
But
there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why
the Old Bolsheviks all
testified against themselves in the treason trials during
Stalin's Great
Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans
and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade
Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel,
Darkness At Noon [
PDF
] by
Arthur Koestler , one of the
most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by
which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these
things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.
Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent
]
In other words, there is no complex
psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the
American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was
bought . It was simply
bought . I think the dominance of the
Donorist class and the
Donorist Party is one of the things that has
emerged analytically within the past 10 years.
When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and
I started by working for John Ashbrook (not
Ashcroft , Ash brook
) against
Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them.
And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only
become clear in the last five to ten years.
I think, in retrospect, with
Buckley
, who
subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there
was some financial transaction. I think that now.
It's an open secret that
Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with
this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was
compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take
that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in
Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I
think that someone was a
donor and I think I know who it was.
So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really
goes back to what
Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates
into a
racket ." It's a racket.
But the good news is, as
John Derbyshire said a few
minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics
and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.
"... Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies. ..."
"... With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency. ..."
"... Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. ..."
"... Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election. ..."
"... Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates. ..."
"... The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures. ..."
"... Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord. ..."
Overlooked in the speculations about Trump's future decisions is the dominant role that Congress
would play in shaping American policy toward the JCPOA. In 2015, in conjunction with the government
of Israel and the Israel lobby in Washington, congressional Republicans mounted an unprecedented
but ultimately an unsuccessful campaign to derail the deal. Still, the lobby and its congressional
patrons have not abandoned their effort to limit the economic benefits of the deal to Iran. One effective
tool is new sanctions-generating legislation. Lawmakers from the House Republican Israel Caucus introduced
several bills which would, among others provisions, extend the Iran Sanctions Act due to expire in
December 2016, block the sale of eighty Boeing planes to Iran and prohibit the Export-Import Bank
from financing business with Iran. Unlike President Obama, President-elect Trump is not expected
to veto the anti-Iran legislation, setting a relatively low bar for its passage.
... ... ...
Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an
effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier
anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and
Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and
companies.
After initially banning all dollar-denominated transactions, OFAC reversed itself authorizing
such dealings provided they are not processed by the American financial system. In yet another effort
to spur international business with Iran, OFAC declared that foreign companies could transact business
with non-sanctioned Iranian companies even if a sanctioned entity held a minority share of its assets.
The Treasury also relaxed the requirement that foreign companies contracting with Iranian counterparts
do automatic due intelligence. Since the Revolutionary Guards have operated numerous ventures with
legitimate entities, the FDD decried this step as "green-lighting" business with the Guards.
... ... ...
With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e
Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency.
Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of
mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic
benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation
and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. There is little
doubt that a serious reduction of the economic benefits accruing from the deal would hurt Rouhani's
chances in the 2017 presidential election. Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media,
such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety
about his chances in the wake of Trump's election.
... ... ...
Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security
Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team
is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they
join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely
press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in
turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional
sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions
that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the
Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.
Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani
to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact
that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would
hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually
impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project.
It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated
in the future, should the need arise.
A Trump administration could let Tehran's hard-liners sabotage the JCPOA.
Farhad Rezaei
November 16, 2016
Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course
with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's
new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the
moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization
would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners
have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane
over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an
agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote
that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates.
... ... ...
The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past
year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation
that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like
the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under
the deal-can trigger more measures.
Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National
Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain
the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners,
should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would
be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction.
This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not
due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers
on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the
waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.
Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani
to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact
that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would
hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually
impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project.
It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated
in the future, should the need arise.
Dr. Farhad Rezaei is a research fellow at Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, Turkey.
He is the author of the forthcoming Iran's Nuclear Program: A Study in Nuclear Proliferation and
Rollback (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State
Department might be a wise move.
And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as
Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland
is probably impossible ;-).
"...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime
in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with
Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently
received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients.
He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye
to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
... ... ..
In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not
with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister
Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese
not
to believe every word Trump said.
He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British
prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian
real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization
signed a
Kolkata deal on Friday.
Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from
the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish
meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.
"... Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon. ..."
"... He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems. ..."
"... Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty. ..."
Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central
bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.
As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in Europe as well, as
is still apparently the case with The Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently posted on his blog
here.
Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking whistleblowers met and told their
stories in the European parliament . The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish
Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was breaking the law in very serious
ways reported it to the Irish regulator.
He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major
political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it
is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries
in Ireland, about any serious problems.
In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would have been told that
Italy's largest Bank was in serious breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole
banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi.
Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know
. If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled
and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own
dereliction of duty.
Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the law?
"... "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government." ..."
"... However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists. ..."
"... On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border. ..."
A former top Turkish general said Donald Trump's election could hasten the end of the Syrian
civil war by opening the door to negotiations with the Syrian government of President Bashar
Assad.
"I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker
Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he
will open a direct link with the central Syrian government."
The United States and Turkey have demanded that Assad step down as part of any agreement to end
the five-year Syrian war.
However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group
and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen
and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists.
Basburg's views do not reflect those of the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In
fact, Basburg was imprisoned for life in 2013 for conspiring against the Turkish government but
the courts overturned the conviction in 2014.
Nevertheless, Basburg said Turkey's interests in Syria have evolved since the war began in 2011,
in large part because of the role of Kurdish militants, whom the Turks consider an enemy. But the
Kurds are supported by the United States, Turkey's longtime ally. Turkey was alarmed when a
Kurdish-dominated rebel alliance seized the border city of Manbij from the Islamic State group.
On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city
about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab
as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their
territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border.
Basburg said Turkey's top concern is having a secure border with Syria. With the United States
and Turkey re-evaluating their interests in Syria, he was optimistic a new administration "will
make some different policy."
"We have to work with [the current Syrian] government. Today, [it's] Assad. Tomorrow, somebody
else might be head of the government," he said.
Basburg also said Russia and Iran would also need to be involved in the negotiations.
"Turkey and the United States have been old friends," Basburg said, but U.S. ties to the Kurdish
forces have led to questions about that relationship.
"... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
"... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
"... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
"... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake
news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating
money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.
I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture.
But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and
years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.
It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:
Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the
government(after they attacked the government)
Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to
overthrow a brutal regime!"
Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries
are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.
All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored
out of Syria.
I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make
it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from
countries that are targets of regime change.
The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or
approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and
US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.
This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many
many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth
seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.
I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train
across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the
country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s
USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations
with the Batista Regiem.
When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal
Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic
warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the
small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about
time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty
seems to know no bounds?
Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the
result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed
and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.
The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the
most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the
process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's
leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices
are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on
Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
@2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs
of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many
sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..
meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue
for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread
or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about
to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..
meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey..
erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept
daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.
Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan
that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries
are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism
and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?
MR KIRBY: No, I do not."
it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct
and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is
constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class
men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington,
who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting
starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a
trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people
like Trump.
The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule
by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term.
It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term,
climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as
we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible.
For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total
propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.
As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer
corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of
promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.
It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will
be cleansed of jihadis as a result.
But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down
and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as
fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments
in the region.
Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently
he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms
can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting
that is for Israel.
Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its
posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm
surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're
not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't
hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern
Syria are bye-bye.
Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever
call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in
Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in
the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power
in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump
is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office
not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now.
Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression
against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So,
it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist
cabal.
Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful
lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.
Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:
He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought
I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I
never thought he'd actually get elected."
Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.
....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon
in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.
Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains
'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution
and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.
MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime.
Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and
paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and
crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.
@2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information
uncensored out of Syria.'
The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans
don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves.
Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the
world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category
as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they
'need' killin'.
Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?
In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders
of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.
He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!
The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....
"The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone
over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee"
a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the
establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls
for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition
air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."
Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk...
But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after
dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil)
by neocon worth reading.
Notable quotes:
"... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
"... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
"... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
"... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
"... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
"... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins
in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the
Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war,
Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government
in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration
did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's
Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul
regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the
vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.
As late as 1999, during a
period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin
proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well
after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W.
Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.
Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam
Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could
justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass
destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less
a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent
history of violent internal conflict.
Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama
administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in
Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border
and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it
would emerge from this was entirely predictable.
The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the
administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without
planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were
U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe
for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?
... ... ...
Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan
predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion
along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political
spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg,
incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach.
Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian,
this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each
state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as
other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states
that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of
those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation
residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given
second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.
Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian
governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO
remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States,
Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how
to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a
genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to
think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual
membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.
Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united
Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow,
encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the
search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its
denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.
Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the
Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a
confrontation with an adversarial Russia?
The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem.
Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its
annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for
business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's
support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no
longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.
AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has
approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a
robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S.
policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the
Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a
thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.
... ... ...
For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception
that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment
regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can
profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance
or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic
coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer
of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military
maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.
... ... ...
If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from
America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been
bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites
in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to
intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.
Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S.
leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety.
Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious
debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on
executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided
consensus.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the
Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest.
Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.
"... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to
believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety
and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does
not lie. ..."
"... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
"... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat
history to assured extinction. ..."
I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you
think about this:
First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry
when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded.
According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat,
and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but
a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry
Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted
after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.
Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem
to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious
safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me,
a mirror does not lie.
Sincerely,
One who does not worry about you.
PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count
and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you,
who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.
@ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel,
neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy
to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.
Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented
another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of
private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".
Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to
repeat history to assured extinction.
"... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
"... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
"... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
"... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for
a further year over the situation in Ukraine.
President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.
Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within
the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and
possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.
"The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions,
including NATO," the White House added.
Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
"We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building
dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov
said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally
on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.
"The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that
President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk,"
Peskov said.
Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States
"are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia,
breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration
crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing
the perceived dangers.
Castigating the US electorate as accomplices and facilitators of wars, or at best describing it as
ignorant sheep herded by political elites, speaks only to a partial reality; in public opinion polls,
even in ones weighted overwhelmingly to the center-right, the American people consistently opposse
militarism and wars, past and present.
The right and Left, each in their own way, fail to grasp the contradiction that define US political
life, namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions
of war and peace, and the electoral process which results in the perpetuation of militarism. We will
proceed to analyze the most recent polling of US public opinion and then turn to the electoral outcomes.
In the second part we will discuss the contradictions and raise several ways in which the contradiction
can be resolved.
... ... ...
Analysis and Perspectives
On all major issues of foreign policy pertaining to war and peace, the political elite is far
more bellicose than the US public; far more likely to ignore wars that threaten national security;
more likely to violate the Constitution;and are committed to increasing military spending even as
it reduces social programs.
The political elites are more likely to intervene or become "entangled" in Middle East wars, against
the opinion of majoritarian popular opinion. No doubt the decidedly oligarchical military-industrial
complexes, Israeli power configuration and mass media publicists, are far more influential than the
pro-democracy public.
The future portends the political elites' continuation of military policies, increasing security
threats and diminishing public representation.
Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes
There is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding
the military's role overseas, wars, constitutional prerogives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment
of US troops to Syria and the US entanglement in Middle East wars, which it is understood to be Israel.
Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate votes for the two major political parties that supports
wars, back Middle East alliances with warring states, Saudi Arabia and Israel,and sanction Russia
as the main threat to US security.
ORDER IT NOW
Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered.
1. Close to 50% of the electorate abstain from voting in Presidential and Congressional elections,
which most likely includes those Americans that oppose the US military role overseas. In other words
the war parties 'win' elections with 25% or less of the electorate.
2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably
influences a minority of the electorate which votes in the elections. However, critics of the mass
media have exaggerated their influence because they fail to explain why the majority of the American
public respondents are in contrary to the mass media and oppose their militarist propaganda.
3. Many of the anti-militarism Americans who decide to vote for war parties may be choosing the
lesser evil. They may decide there are possible degrees of war mongering.
4. Americans who oppose militarism may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons other
than overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may vote for a militarist politician who
secures financing for local infrastructure programs, or dairy subsidies or promises of employment,
or lowering the public debt or opposing corrupt incumbents.
5. Americans opposed to militarism may be deceived by demagogic war party presidential candidates
who promise peace and who, once in power, escalate wars.
6. Likewise, 'identity politics' can divert anti-militarist voters into supporting war party candidates
who claim office because of their race, ethnicity, gender, loyalties to overseas states and sexual
preference.
7. The war parties block anti-militarist parties from access to the mass media, especially during
electoral debates viewed by tens of millions. War parties establish onerous restrictions for registering
anti-militarist parties, voters with non-violent prison records or lacking photo identification or
transport to voting sites or time-off from work. In other words the electoral process is rigged and
imposes 'forced voting' and abstention: limited choices obligate abstention or voting for war parties.
Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights
to register and debate in the mass media, and where financial campaigns are equalized will the contradictions
between anti-militarist majorities and voters for pro-war elites be resolved.
"... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
"... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
"... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
"... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
"... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
"... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
"... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
"... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
"... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
"... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
"... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
"... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
"... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
"... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
"... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
"... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
"... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
"... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
"... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
"... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
"... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
"... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including
a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who
sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools
to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any
bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?
I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled
actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that
this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe
that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far
more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of
the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment.
Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted
professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several
instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.
Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's
affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed,
personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in
demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance
on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C"
work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted
writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless,
you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar,
and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.
But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice
on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable
feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English
or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually
studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.
To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing
black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the
gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often
had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing").
This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants
pretending to be WASPS.
But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence
at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A
Beautiful Mind
might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute
if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar.
To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.
Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs,
though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real"
element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now
offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.
Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these
are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a
crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence.
Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy).
But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever
the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple
"pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic
black attire.
Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything
from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a
mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just
a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative
directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering
a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor
from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish
expressions.
Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances.
No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just
as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality.
The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being
"conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done.
I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation
written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation
reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).
Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation
lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually
perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items.
In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent
during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond
the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being
asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer
questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence
as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important
than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained
a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political
Science Association told me to do it this way."
Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental
that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to
one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during
his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the
press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president
I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."
Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers
impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry
Gates
dustup
in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings.
You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling
to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively
to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.
Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous
example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he
thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the
word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged
the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise
meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are
on the Right Side of History"?
I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy
playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty
Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores)
are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at
the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard
to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.
Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President
of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible
evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable
for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince
others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role
of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step
toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words
This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed
military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is
first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an
Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within
two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.
Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant
residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any
state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.
As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no
cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to
fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was
raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but
Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the
corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts.
Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he
left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.
3.anon says:
November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words
What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ?? How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all
the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero
academic competency ??
6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT
Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a
nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.
8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western"
democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you
are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.
Why does anyone still find this surprising?
11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words
The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or
mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to
believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up
suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.
12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words
Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked
Obama as an "empty chair").
I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black
higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and
harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be
blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position
after only a few years.
He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends
for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures,
and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never
brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on
the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and
that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.
It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on
Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his
depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.
This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway
speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties
to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.
It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his
administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people
tell me I did a great job!
13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT
It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The
observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.
15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words
@Anon
"I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to
have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."
Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally
studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.
16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words
This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of
them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful
recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The
latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of
intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.
17.Jim Christian says:
November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words @Anon
PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power
in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being,
drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.
Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look
like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to
conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a
piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out
strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish
influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of
war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.
20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT
Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the
eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when
Presidents.
21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT
So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.
22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT
Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent".
America is a society run by and for phonies.
23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words
Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an
anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration
Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the
anti-commie Cold War Crusade.
The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White
American Majority.
It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..
24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CCZ
I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related
to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store
manager.
25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words
I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama
deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and
Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.
Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.
"There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established
by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.
More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep
Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and
moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust
movies have won at least one Oscar ..
27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Tom Welsh
Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the
art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and
frauds to one degree or another.
I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it
exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is
balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful,
extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to
laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that
rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is
necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is
nothing but a colossal swindle.
- H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)
28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely
put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for
something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped.
What choice did the American people have?
He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to
barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain
gotten into office?
Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person
whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.
American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is
handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions
from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work
everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are
calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects
their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed
and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?
29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words
President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers,
mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers,
developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft
professors.
Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a
name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and
begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making
speeches and appearances. Tough job .
30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White
House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did
a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the
American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.
32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT
Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he
deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to
pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/
34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT
@AndrewR
"Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware
store manager."
AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of
hardware store managers in this country.
"... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
"... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
"... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
"... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
"... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
"... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
"... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the
fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the
2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street",
that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate,
the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself
as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.
How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core
objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing
fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it
to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale.
This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.
As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President,
her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions"
against "dictators" charged with "genocide".
As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama
to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the
one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" –
an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare
the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against
Russia.
Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump
Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no
air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around
US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment,
particularly on military expenditure from the allies.
Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull
it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional
strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like
temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House
itself depends.
Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone
of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).
Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and
which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically,
factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of
the US middle class becoming even worse.
Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.
It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly
polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect],
Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.
"... We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue. ..."
Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser has begun combat operations in Syria,
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.
"Today, we started a major operation to launch massive strikes on Daesh and al-Nusra Front
targets in the Idlib and Homs provinces [in Syria]," Shoigu said at Russian President Vladimir
Putin's meeting with the ministry's leadership and defense enterprises.
Russian Admiral Grigorovich frigate targeted terrorists in Syria with Kalibr cruise missile
strikes, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.
The NGO faux whining about Aleppo will increase but in a few months they may lose their chief
audience and facilitator.
At a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the top leadership of the Russian
Armed Forces, Shoigu said the following:
Today at 10:30 and 11:00 we launched a large-scale operation against the positions of Islamic
State and Al-Nusra [terrorist groups] in the provinces of Idlib and Homs.
The main targets of the strikes are warehouses with ammunition, [terrorist] gatherings and
terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons
of mass destruction.
We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production
of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established
industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue.
Iran opened three oilfields with a total production of more than 220,000 barrels per day (bpd)
on Sunday, as the country ramps up its production after the lifting of sanctions.
President Hassan Rouhani officially launched the first phases of the Yadavaran and North Azadegan
fields as well as the North Yaran field, which are shared with neighboring Iraq, the Iranian oil
ministry's news agency SHANA reported.
Yadavaran will have a production of up to 115,000 bpd in its first phase and North Azadegan's
output is 75,000 bpd, SHANA said.
North Yaran will initially produce 30,000 bpd, the news agency reported last week.
Dr Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Sir Michael Fallon, and Priti Patel issued a joint rejection
The Government has rejected calls by two parliamentary committees for it to stop the sale of
British bombs to Saudi Arabia's armed forces in Yemen.
Saudi forces have been widely accused of committing war crimes during the campaign in the country,
where reports on the ground suggest they have blown up international hospitals, funerals, schools,
and weddings.
Despite the reported incidents and the worsening humanitarian situation in the country since
the bombardment began, the UK has signed off Ł3.3 billion in arms sales to the country since the
start of the offensive….
####
What's not to like about supping from the Wahabbi cup?
"... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
"... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
"... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
"... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists
it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,"
Bolton
said
just last year.
Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq
used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."
"If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,"
Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."
Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave
ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has
said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.
You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.
Trump has blamed George W. Bush,
Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list,
who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.
In 2011, Bolton
bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic
interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice
and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton
bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."
When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi
in power, he
replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is
100 percent right .
No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national
security than Bolton.
All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't
deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current
administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy
across the globe is demanded.
Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should
be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight
Eisenhower
understood
this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."
Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege
to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he
had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."
But he's seems to be okay with your son or
daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton
was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes
The American Conservative's Jon Utley.
At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign
policy.
Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of
the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along
with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living
Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth
of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty
line in Central and Eastern Europe."
The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and
pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics,
savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the
current exchange rate).
The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).
Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and
"money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.
"... Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it. ..."
"... When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. ..."
"... " Markets " do not " demand " anything. ..."
"... But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. ..."
"... They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees. ..."
"... Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. ..."
"... If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC. ..."
"... It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing. ..."
"... Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces." ..."
"... I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON. ..."
"... Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights ..."
"... Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection ..."
"... It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties . ..."
"... Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity. ..."
"... What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows. ..."
"... A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. ..."
"... The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public ..."
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up
on the cult mentality that pervades it.
When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class
status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target
for buying into the group-think. Or at least going along with it on the promise of continued
employment. While I'm letting myself off the hook in the process, I think that's forgivable. I and
others like me need the money. Besides, in our spare time, we might try to atone for our misdeeds
by using whatever means we have available, such as contributing to Naked Capitalism in whatever way
we can, to try to set the record straight.
Not quite so easily forgivable, though, are the members of an altogether different cadre who don't
give the impression of having to live paycheck to paycheck. What is it that motivates them? Why do
they willingly devise clever - and, I have to say it, some are exceptionally adept - ruses to defend
and further the causes of our élites?
... ... ...
As readers with not-so-long memories will recall, in the run-up to the Global Financial Crisis,
the TBTFs did indeed exercise the " FU Option ". As asset prices for the securities they held
fell precipitously, they held more and more of those assets on their balance sheets, refusing to
- or unable to - off-load them into a market that was shunning them. Eventually their capital cushions
were so depleted because of this, they became insolvent. Staring catastrophe in the face, governments
were put into a double-bind by the TBTFs: Rescue us through bail-outs or stand by and see our societies
suffer major collateral damage (bank runs, a collapse of world trade, ruining of perfectly good and
solvent businesses with the likelihood of mass unemployment and civil unrest).
In that situation, who was the " U " who was being " F "'ed? It was governments
and the public.
Faced with an asymmetry of power, in a reverse of the scenario painted by the Streetwise Professor
for OTC trading (where a notional seller tells a theoretical buyer they can go to Hell if they don't
want to pay the price the seller is asking), governments - and us - found themselves on the buy-side
of an " FU Option ". "F the-rest-of-us By Necessity" was a better description as we were
turned into forced buyers of what no other "market participant" would touch.
My dear Professor, allow me to give you , if I may risk the label of being impudent,
a lesson. If I am selling my prized Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups in a yard sale and you make
me a offer for them, that - I'm sure we'd agree on this point - is an OTC transaction. There's no
exchange (mercifully) for Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups. I put a price sticker on them. If you
want them, you pay the price I'm asking. Or else, you make me a different offer. If you don't pay
the price I want, or I don't accept the price you're offering, we do, indeed, have a genuine "
FU Option " scenario. But if instead my mother-in-law threatens to saw your face off with her
cheese grater if you don't buy my Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups at the price shown on the sticker,
then we no longer have an OTC transaction. We have extortion. See the difference?
That's not all. The piece discusses the differences between a proposed smart-contract based settlement
compared with a centralised counterparty which brings up some very valid points. But then it makes
a serious blunder which is introduced with some subtly but is all the more dangerous because of it.
I'll highlight the problem:
So the proposal does some of the same things as a CCP, but not all of them, and in fact omits
the most important bits that make central clearing central clearing. To the extent that these other
CCP services add value–or regulation compels market participants to utilize a CCP that offers these
services–market participants will choose to use a CCP, rather than this service. It is not a perfect
substitute for central clearing, and will not disintermediate central clearing in cases where the
services it does not offer and the functions it does not perform are demanded by market participants
, or by regulators.
Did you catch what is the most troubling thing in that paragraph? The technicalities of it are
fine, but the bigger framing is perilous. "Market participants" is given agency. And put on the same
level as actions taken by regulators. This is at best unintentionally misleading and at worse an
entirely deliberate falsehood.
The fallacious thinking which caused it is due to a traditional economist's mind-set. But this
mind-set is hopelessly wrong and every time we encounter it, we must challenge it. Regardless of
what other progressive goodies it is being bundled up with.
" Markets " do not " demand " anything.
A regulator or central bank can demand that a bank hold more capital and open its books
to check the underlying asset quality. The CFPB can demand that Wells Fargo stops opening fake accounts.
Even I can demand a pony. The power structures, laws, enforcement and levels of trust (to name the
main constraints) governing who is demanding what from whom determine how likely they will be to
have their demands met.
But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors
to consider entering into a transaction. The pricing signal cannot make any potential
actor participate in that transaction. Not, probably, that it would have helped her much, but Hillary
Clinton could have created a market for left-wing bloggers to shill for Obamacare by offering Lambert
$1million to start churning out pro-ACA posts on his blog. But that market which Hillary could create
could not "demand" Lambert accept her offer. Lambert would not take that, or any other monetary amount,
and would never enter such a transaction. Markets have limits.
Whether unintentionally or by design, we have a nice example of bait and switch in the Streetwise
Professor's Blockchain article. If you run a critique of Blockchain, you'll likely attract an anti-libertarian
audience. It's a classic example of
nudge theory . If you can
lure readers in with the promise of taking a swipe at disruptive innovation nonsense but then lead
them to being suckered into a reinforcement of failed conventional free-market hogwash, that can
be a powerful propaganda tool.
But perhaps the Blockchain feature was an aberration, just a one-off? No.
Take, for example, this feature
on Deutsche Bank from earlier this month which I'll enter as Exhibit B - It's not the TBTFs Fault,
the Regulators / Governments / Some Guy / Made Us Do It
I'll leave the worst 'til last, but for now let's start with this little treasure:
the pre-crisis political bargain was that banks would facilitate income redistribution
policy by provide credit to low income individuals. This seeded the crisis (though like any complex
event, there were myriad other contributing causal factors), the political aftershocks of which
are being felt to this day. Banking became a pariah industry, as the very large legal settlements
extracted by governments indicate.
No, Streetwise Professor, banks did not provide credit to low income individuals as part of some
"political bargain". They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable.
The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised
and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools
which directly benefitted bank employees.
Almost unimaginable wealth could be generated by individuals (the Naked Capitalism archive details
the full sordid story of the likes of Magnetar). The fact that this would all blow up eventually
was certainly predicable and even known by many actors in the prevailing milieu but they didn't care.
They knew they'd have already set themselves up for life financially even after just a few years
in that "game". Politics, for once, had nothing to do with it, save perhaps that regulators, which
are the politicians' responsibility, should have been better able to spot what was going on.
But the Streetwise Professor is only just getting started with the counterfactual misinformation:
It is definitely desirable to have mechanisms to hold financial malfeasors accountable,
but the Deutsche episode illustrates several difficulties. The first is that even the biggest
entities can be judgment proof, and imposing judgments on them can have disastrous economic externalities.
Another is that there is a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process, and the results
of the process. There is little due process here, and the risks and costs of litigation mean that
the outcome of attempts to hold bankers accountable is the result of a negotiation between the
state and large financial institutions that is carried out in a highly politicized environment
in which emotions and narratives are likely to trump facts. There is room for serious doubt about
the quality of justice that results from this process.
A casual skim could leave the reader with the impression that the Streetwise Professor is lamenting,
rightly, the persistency of the TBTF model. But there's something really dastardly being concocted
here - the notion that in our societies, the rule of law is always and inevitably fallible and not
fit for the purpose of bringing errant TBTFs to justice. And that, if a case is brought against a
TBTF like Deutsche, then it can't help but become a political football.
Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on
Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby
either. Any quick parse through the judgments which the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.K. Supreme
Court or the European Court of Justice (to name only a few) hand down on complex cases - often running
to hundreds or even a thousand pages - demonstrates that courts can and do consider fairly and justly
the evidence that prosecutors present and make balanced rulings. And banks can utilize the same legal
safeguards that the law provides - they're not likely to be short of good legal advice options. Trying,
as the Steetwise Professor does, to claim that the TBTFs can't get justice is an insult to our judicial
systems and acceptance of this notion followed by any routine repetition serves to undermine faith
in the rule of law.
If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor
is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water
down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies.
Look , if you can do so without wincing, at
what has happened to the SEC.
It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was
financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar
to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that
sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing.
In summary, when you throw brickbats at a fellow blogger, it seems to me that you have a moral
obligation to put your cards on the table, to explain your motivations. I don't have to write for
a living ("just as well", I hear forbearing readers shout back). I don't take a penny from Naked
Capitalism's hard-wrung fundraisers, although Yves has generously offered a very modest stipend in
line with other contributors, I cannot conscientiously take anything for what I submit. I write in
the hope that I have some small insights that would help to undo some of the damage which big finance
has done to our cultures, our shared values and our aspirations for what we hope the future will
be for us and others.
That's what motivates me, anyway. After reading his output, I'm really still not at all sure what
is motivating the Streetwise Professor. Certainly there is nothing at all to suggest that he is interested
in rebuking or revising any of the traditional thought-forms which pass for the so-called science
of economics. Conventional economic theory is the ultimate in betrayal of the use of rational methodology
to provide air-cover for élite power grabs. It'll take more than a refutation of Blockchain spin
to convince me that the Streetwise Professor is ready to kick away the more odious ladders - like
being a professional economist - that have given him the leg-ups to the lofty perch he enjoys occupying.
About Clive
Survivor of nearly 30 years in a TBTF bank. Also had the privilege of working in Japan,
which was great, selling real estate, which was an experience bordering on the psychedelic.
View all posts by Clive →
I disagree on the first bit. Even at this blog, Yves mentiones not quite rarely the dangers
of tight coupling. The central exchanges create exactly that. Yes, the FU option of OTC is dangerous.
But then, everything is dangerous, and if I have to choose between tight coupling dangerous option
and loose coupling one, I'll chose the lose coupling one.
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations
– moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation,
although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
To me all the para says is: markets demand services, and CCP don't offer them – and don't have
to. Regulators demand services (to be offered by CCP), and CCP deliver.
And sorry, I also disagree with your "markets participants demand". The text says "services
[ ] are demanded [by potential clients and by regulators]". I can't honestly see what's the problem
with that. Of course, regulatory demand, and a client demand are two different things – the former
you ignore at your peril, the second you can ignore to your heart's content.
But markets (or, I'd say agents that want to purchase – or sell) _always_ demand something,
and always offer something – otherwise there would not be any market or exchange of services (it
doesn't have to be there even with offer and demand, but in the absence of one it definitely won't
be there).
You could happily change the word to "require" "want" etc. and the meaning of the para would
remain unchanged.
The problem I had with the notion that OTC reduces tight coupling is that it gives the appearance
of reducing tight couple but doesn't actually do this. While "the market" is functioning within
its expected parameters, OTC is less tightly coupled than an Exchange. But as we saw first-hand
in the GFC, those markets function, right up until the point where they don't. By continuing to
function, or certainly giving the appearances of continuing to be functioning, they hide the stresses
which are building up within them but no-one can see. Unless you are deeply plumbed in to the
day-to-day operational activities of the OTC market and can spot signs - and that's all they are,
signs, you don't get to take a view of the whole edifice - you simply don't have a clue. There
were, at most, only a couple of dozen people in the organisation itself and outside it who knew
that my TBTF was a day away from being unable to open for business. That was entirely down to
information asymmetry and that asymmetry was 100% down to OTC prevalence.
And all the while TBTF isn't fixed, then as soon as the OTC market(s) fall off a cliff, the
public provision backstops can be forced to kick in. Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind
people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when
their dangerous things blow up in their faces and they expect me to sort the mess out. If that
is the dynamic, and to me, it most definitely is, then I want the actors who are engaged in the
dangerous things to be highly visible, I want them right where I can see them. Not hiding their
high-risk activities in an OTC venue that I'm not privy to.
And I stick by my objection to the - what I can't see how it isn't being deliberate - fuzziness
or obfuscation about who gets to "demand" and who is merely allowed "invite" parties to a transaction
to either perform or not perform of their own volition. This isn't an incidental semantic about
vocabulary. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the Streetwise Professor's assessment of
innovation.
Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces. My biggest lambaste
of the Streetwise Professor's commentaries is that he examines them only in terms of "technology"
and "economics". In doing so, he reaches partial and inaccurate conclusions.
A 10 year old child might "demand", "require", "ask for", "insist", "claim a right to have"
(use whatever word or phrase you like there) a gun and live ammunition. But they are not, and
should not be, permitted to enter into a transaction to obtain the said gun and ammo based only
on the availability of the technology and the economics that would allow them to satisfy the seller's
market clearing sale price if they saved their pocket money for a sufficient amount of time. The
other forces I listed in my above paragraph are also involved, and just as well.
"Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces."
Very well said. I would argue further that "power relationships" structure how all the other
lenses actually operate. In the early sixteenth century the power relationship between the Church,
and Martin Luther, was such that the latter had an opening to redefine "morality"– in such a way
that the Pope's moral opinion was eventually no longer dispositive for Protestants.
In other words, the French invasion of Italy, late in the fifteenth century, weakened the papal
states enough to allow for defiance.
That last sentence, is of course a gross over-simplification! Anyone wishing to know the nitty-gritty
details of how foreign domination over the Italian peninsula was established by the middle of
the sixteenth century should read Machiavelli and Guicciardini.
The latter author's appeal to skepticism, when interpreting the actions and motivations of
powerful people, rings very true five centuries later:
" perché di accidenti tanto memorabili si intendino i consigli e i fondamenti; i quali spesso
sono occulti, e divulgati il piů delle volte in modo molto lontano da quell che č vero."
"Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an
awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces".
I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little
elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN
REASON.
And let's face it, much of the prior GFC behaviour was unreasonably dangerous. As it turned
out, not that dangerous to its perpetrators .
Danger, like risk, is a cost-benefit calculation. When that calculation ONLY includes benefits
for its originator & suppresses any (real & calculatable) cost for the community it's already
looking suspiciously like an unreasonable danger .
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the
regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new
regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually
do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate
banking committee like a deer in headlights as Warren tries to get her to give anything like
a straight answer as to why, to this day, many if not most TBTFs have no rapid selloff/solvency
plan (which is required by the Dodd-Frank law) or why those banks that fail their stress tests
(again and again) suffer no consequences as a result.
How is any of this supposed to work when so many are clearly acting in bad faith?
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly
pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.
If you do not subscribe to the "cult mentality," although I'd prefer to call it a dogma, because
it is a unswerving belief in an unproven fact in the face of evidence the fact is not only unproven,
but wrong, one is "not a team player" and then penalized.
If these libertarian want "open markets" and innovation they have to shed the human response
to proof. In their behavior they are no better than the medieval pope, and his court, who did
not want to believe a the earth travels around the sun.
Medieval popes were probably more open to Pythagorean/Copernican cosmologies than early 17th
century Jesuits (i.e. Bellarmine); the opposition of the latter to Galileo had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with Protestantism and Protestant biblical interpretation. Bellarmine
was wrong and what happened to Galileo was shameful. But many of the best astronomers of the time
were in fact Jesuits, and the traditional way the story is told is inaccurate on almost every
level (and a product of late 19th century Italian nationalism).
this was very interesting stuff. Since a lot of things were coming together in the 90s and
2000s that were all connected in a mess too big to understand simply as immoral banking (freeing
up capital like that was crazy but there must have been a reason to try it besides windfall profiteering
and flat-out gambling), I imagine the following: Greenspan and the TBTFs knew returns were diminishing
and set out to do something about it. Because growth and expanding markets were the only thing
that could keep up with a demand by pension funds (and then little Bush's idiotic war) for a minimum
8% return. But growth was slowing down so the situation required clever manipulations and incomprehensible
things like financial derivatives. Makes sense to me. And if this is even partially true then
there was a political mandate all mixed up with the GFC. The banks really did crazy stuff, but
with the blessing of the Fed. Later when Bernanke said about QE and nirp: "now we are in uncharted
territory" he was fibbing – the Fed had been in uncharted territory, trying to make things work,
for almost 20 years. And failing.
Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming
recession as well as ensure W's reelection
It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals
were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then
we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties .
WORSE then a bunch of Used Car Salesman, but what else would you expect from people who KEEP
the State Income taxes withheld from their employees checks
This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is 230 or greater (roughly
a billion elements). This was inconceivable back in the '80s, when Programming Pearls was written,
but it is common these days at Google and other places. In Programming Pearls, Bentley says
"While the first binary search was published in 1946, the first binary search that works correctly
for all values of n did not appear until 1962." The truth is, very few correct versions have
ever been published, at least in mainstream programming languages.
Sorting is, or ought to be, basic blocking and tackling. Very smart, not corrupt people worked
on this. And yet, 2006 – 1946 = 60 years later, bugs are still being discovered.
The nice thing about putting your cash in a coffee can in the back yard is that it won't evaporate
because some hacker gets clever about big numbers.
Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and
eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable,
dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity.
What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps
they believed their own nonsense. Who knows.
What is the Streetwise Professor's (note the word "professor") real view? Has he thought much
about it or simply imbibed his "owners'" views, making him a useful tool. I don't know.
From the book "Listen, Liberal."
" A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise
is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism.
Take the sort of complexity we saw in the financial instruments that drove the last financial
crisis. For old-school regulators, I am told, undue financial complexity was an indication of
likely fraud. But for the liberal class, it is the opposite: an indicator of sophistication. Complexity
is admirable in its own right. The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences:
Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to
epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer
of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry
uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public. "
-Thomas Frank
"... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
"... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
"... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
"... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his
election as his views on trade and the border.
Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists
of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia.
The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.
On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. …
We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice.
And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."
Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.
They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the
eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.
They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it,
acts of war Congress never authorized.
They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with
high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.
Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South
China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic
Bay.
In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of
war the War Party would risk.
Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign
policy for a generation.
After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy
than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.
In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen
to the armies of Mao Zedong.
As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment
of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from
being overrun.
At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having
disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and
preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."
A policy born of hubris.
Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with
Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.
How did we expect Russian patriots to react?
The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit,
and to the vital interests of the United States.
What should Trump say?
As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold
War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we
will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.
For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic
of the Soviet Union.
While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations
as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most
Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.
The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves
is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and
dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.
No other nation's internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.
Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting
their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.
In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down
the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq
and Libya.
Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy,
which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have
no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries'
wars or pay other countries' bills.
The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents
his secretaries of state and defense.
"... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
"... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
"... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron
Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate
the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and
Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce
every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down
with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.
Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he
criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous
social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO
was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries
in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.
His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers,
who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested
and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be
and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.
Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as
South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars
on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea
is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do."
He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed:
"I just think we have to rebuild our country."
Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war.
He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous
pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned
against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that
should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."
... ... ...
Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state,"
Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war,
no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no
greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.
WikiLeaks series on deals involving
Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons
and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the
Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for
American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
globinfo freexchange
A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from
Jon Soltz
, an Iraq War Veteran and founder
of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the
Clinton/Podesta complex
had received about
the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that "
arming
and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea
" and that he helped to train
the Iraqi Army, and "
their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists
they've fought before and who continue to target them
". He also writes that "
there is no
winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars
".
Most important parts of the short letter:
Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous
idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that
many
of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target
them
. Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted,
once we introduce weapons, we have zero control
over them
. The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day
they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but
we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil
war.
Moreover,
there is no winning scenario when we get involved
in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars
. On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best:
"We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics."
Let's not make the same mistake again.
Full letter:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
Recall that, another letter from Clinton email
series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that
Hillary had been seriously warned about the
oncoming Syrian chaos
,
already since 2011.
Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those
serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or
at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.
"... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
"... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned
as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State
James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them
to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as
follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their
activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent
of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one
in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
"... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
"... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
"... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
"... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
"... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because
I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever
what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war
with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first,
we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek
common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .
And Putin's reply was immediate:
We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations
between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the
level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it
is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let
me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps
on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.
This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on
the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia
and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.
This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat
of Hillary and the victory of Trump.
Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the
Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront
an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that
they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?
I don't know. Nobody does.
One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint
in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.
I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided.
I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and
the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the
USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the
choice was simple: war or peace.
Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate
media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The
American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence
and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.
I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a
pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites
do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody
that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!
Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers,
in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should
be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy:
the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution,
and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict ".
The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological
issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe,
or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs –
is the USA as a *normal* nation.
The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it,
but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage
to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush
him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power
has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of
WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.
Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened
today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving
anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed.
This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order
of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts
that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute
and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow
to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding
myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges
from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the
case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and
that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.
Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.
With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well
have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use
the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible
conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize
that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work
with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.
If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation
or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it
for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?
"... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
"... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
"... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy
tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source
familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.
There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."
Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include
former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea
culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who
did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.
... ... ...
Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk
our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience"
to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."
Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might
encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has
refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.
It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply
for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.
There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers"
for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition
team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly
opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't
support their candidate.
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there
are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3
groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web
of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize
its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have
read as follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities
to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed
at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and
the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."
None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.
Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.
Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.
News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.
I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.
Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal
outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to
attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?
The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting
politically correct views. And so on.
This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.
Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner
and give them a "French Haircut"!
"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield
their brand."
Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:
"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right,
is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm
of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American
Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America
to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch,
James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite
Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this
elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome,
Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been
exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking
houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge,
there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization
They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort
of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George
Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People
comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage
infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business
what they do.
We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also
the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.
Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed
to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says
it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question
about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to
begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.
For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.
Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.
Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering
Global Crime Syndicate.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to
be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not
ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started.
Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling
for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.
Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut
down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic
terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his
son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very
UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking
from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.
Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia,
they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful
in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...
Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their
audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push
those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons
do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?
Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled
by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a
lot of buttons you can push.
Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying.
Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the
catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people,
the White people, are stirring from their slumber.
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.
JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's
security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA,
empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple
revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have
done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and
then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice
for the violence that he funded.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be
distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint
a special prosecutor, PROMISED...
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes
of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The
"real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through
501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a
massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa)..
But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter
missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned
down in front of the whole world.
If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)
I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon
the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the
purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to
something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest.
They will come back... that is what they do.
They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.
In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again
may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss
of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are
truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest
groups because they do not have a voice.
Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.
The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors'
complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests
get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.
In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors
and let them know they are a part of your movement.
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.
Got that wrong as well.
Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of
the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge
in her own country!
lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM
Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff,
but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.
NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe,
as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty.
According to Spiegel magazine,
strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report
which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and
fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more
German
defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11
"For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end
of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.
During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He
also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies
unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."
"We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic
relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the
prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned
the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.
The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the
US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.
Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn
commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."
Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled
its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.
The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker,
President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.
Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this
ourselves," he argued on Thursday.
If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries
like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units
able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm,
a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.
Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure
from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO
states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates
each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032,
Spiegel reported.
The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of
each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.
Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest
military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures
by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.
"No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.
Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with
the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms
shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades,
expected to
deploy
in Europe by January 2017.
I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly
fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest
and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few
years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in
the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did
I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be
my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)
The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse
trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking –
most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a
neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
Oh tempora, oh mores!
I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to
be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.
The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of
staff and former staff shareholders.
I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years
(many, many) since I read it.
And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into
Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.
The people loyal to the Syrian government
are happy
with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:
At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American
traveler.
"Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs
up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."
The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in
offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180
degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the
initial position
:
Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a
humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was
talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.
The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the
Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists
such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.
The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed
weapons, training and
billions of dollars
to "moderate rebels". These then
turned around
(vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined
it themselves. The scheme was
no secret
at
all
and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign
Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to
separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he
falsely accuse Russia
of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the
upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.
That changed the day the president-elect Trump set foot into the White House. While
Obama met Trump in the oval office, new policies, prepared beforehand, were launched.
The policies were held back until after the election and would likely not have been
revealed or implemented if Clinton had won.
The U.S. declared that from now on it
will fight
against al-Qaeda in Syria:
President Obama has
ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of an
al-Qaeda-linked group in Syria
that the administration had largely ignored
until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian
government, U.S. officials said.
That shift is
likely to accelerate once President-elect Donald Trump takes
office. ... possibly in direct cooperation with Moscow
.
...
U.S. officials who opposed the decision to go after al-Nusra's wider leadership
warned that the United States would effectively be doing the Assad government's
bidding by weakening a group on the front line of the counter-Assad fight.
...
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and other Pentagon leaders initially resisted the
idea of devoting more Pentagon surveillance aircraft and armed drones against al-Nusra.
Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama
administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign,
which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing. He
saw al-Qaeda in Syria as a
welcome proxy force
against Russia.
But Obama has now shut down that policy. We are not yet sure that this is for good
but the above Washington Post account is
not the
only signal
:
rg the lg | Nov 11, 2016 11:02:07 AM |
5
Obama shifting policy is probably to protect his legacy from the reality that the US
promotes chaos as a national goal. It is also a cynical attempt to pre-empt any Trump
induced success in Syria?
The good news is that there is rioting in the
DuhMurriKKKan streets as a consequence of Trump being elected rather than Clinton ...
and all this time we were supposed to be afraid of Trump-ites hitting the streets if
their guy lost. I don't recall anyone suggesting there would be Clintonistas on the
streets if Trump won.
It is telling that the WaPo article emphasizes that "limited" US airstrikes are being
conducted and only after notifying Ru. IOW Putin has established a de facto no-fly
zone. He is now controlling where and when USG flies in Syria.
DTDuck now starts his balancing act; we'll soon know if he's got what it takes to
be a leader. He can't kiss Putin's ass without helping Assad. He can't help Assad and
kiss Bibi's ass. And yet he's already kissing Bibi's ass. Syria is about Yisrael.
Always has been. If DTDuck can come down on both sides of that fence, he's a genius.
And maybe he is. DTDuck has just proven that he doesn't need the MSM or AIPAC's
shekels to get elected. That means the iJews won't be able control him unless they
threaten him and his family physically. He's one dangerous dude as far as Ertz
Yisrael goes. But so was JFK.
I'm quite certain that Obama is playing his "Trump" card as a last-ditch effort to
encourage the Russians to delay their impending (full spectrum) offensive and keep
them off-balance for a few more days/ weeks and thus give his 'Russian quagmire'
dream another 40 winks. According to Al Jazeera, the Yanks are saying that they'll be
restricting the scope of their attacks on 'Terrorist Leaders' in Syria to drone
surveillance and strikes. Al Jaz's reporter was speaking to their Washington
correspondent and one of them (not sure which) mentioned that the US won't be sending
in boots or manned aircraft without the permission of the Syrian Govt. So, if nothing
else, this probably spells the end of any present or future (illegal) military
involvement by AmeriKKKa's Christian allies in Syria.
So imo, overall, it's a crock and a trick - small bikkies with a high risk of
Yankee treachery. If the Yankees were sincere (cough, cough) they'd cooperate
directly with Syria/Russia and agree on who's in charge of the joint mission. And if
the Russians are sincere they'll ask the Yankees to respect Syria's sovereignty and
stay out of Syria.
Inasmuch as the CIA has a very good idea where the leaders of al-Nusrah front are,
this is ostensibly a directive to bomb the CIA Will the US campaign against al-Nusrah
inexplicably fail?
Jack Smith: Clinton won the election. The electoral college overturns the popular
vote of course...unless the electors keep faith with democracy, and vote for the
winner?
A clean up operation maybe? Who knows what kind of dirt those moder...oops terrorist
leaders may have and who they could probably implicate. With Hillary in the white
house, any info that may come from them, could easily go under the carpet as
propaganda. Who knows what Trump could do?
This should make it untenable for the other colonial powers in NATO to keep
supporting AQ as well. So hopefully we have seen the end of any more white helmets
and other propaganda and we won't hear any more from that idiot sitting in his
basement in the UK that all the MSM take as the new messiah of truth. Maybe Ken Roth
will lose his job lose his job to.
@12 The democrats were perfectly fine with the
electoral college when it was going to work for them so they can STFU.
"According to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph
Dunford, after meeting with his Turkish counterpart, that "The coalition and Turkey
will work together on the long-term plan for seizing, holding and governing Raqqa."
b - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting those
millions of Saudi/Qatari/Israeli dollars that personally enriched the Clinton's,
funded their private family foundation and bankrolled the DNC machine to anoint ONLY
Queen Clinton BOUGHT the necessary United States influence (CIA, Military, State, WH,
DNC) to ensure U.S. foreign policy 'stay the course no matter the damned
consequences' in Syria? Russia? Ukraine? until November 8 when she was to be crowned?
And now that she and her diabolical neocon pals have lost the opportunity to rip
apart the Middle East the U.S. client states - the Saudi's, Qatari's and Israeli's -
are taking there marbles back and going home b/c the new guy refuses to play their
way?
Might this provocative suggestion also account for the record breaking U.S. arms
sales to the Saudi's and Israeli's this year in preparation for that 'all hell would
break loose WWIII' she, her neocon pals and the Saudi's, Israeli's and Qatari's were
all lusting after.
Might this suggestion also account for Adelson's buying Trump's silence, loyalty
to Israel? We'll see how far Trump goes, but here's a link to his Israeli policy
position pre 11/8 -
http://bit.ly/2fIqhir
(the joint statement is posted at Medium. I posted a bit.ly
link b/c I feared the Medium link would have blown out the thread)
Finally, Giuliani's advice that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation
stay the course when asked about Obama pardoning the almost crowned Queen, make's a
great deal more sense, that is, if I'm reading your underlying suggestion correctly,
b.
P.S. - I can't help but to remain curious why we didn't see more leaked emails
from the Podesta stash between Hillary, John and maybe Obama, but at least Hillary
and John. After all, he kept nearly 60k emails on his gmail account and few that were
released dealt with foreign policy/donors/deals. Maybe a get out of the Ecuadorian
Embassy card is being played? Absolutely delicious if my reading into b's post today
is correct.
Everything potentially happening in Syria now revolves around Turkey and Russia.
Either Erdogan will invade with Turkish troops/armor to carve off his Kurdish buffer
zone/concentration camp in northern Syria, or he won't. Russia will either let them
or it won't.
The Turkmen/Al Zenki FSA head-choppers are over-extended and can't take al Bab (or
ar Raqqa) by themselves anymore. They will either be abandoned (which I don't think
will happen) to die at the hands of the Kurds and SAA, or they'll be reinforced by
the invading Turkish Army to 'finish' the creation of
Turkmeneli
(or as much as they can grab). The U.S. will sit on the sidelines and
watch, with the occasional coalition air strikes to make it look like we still matter
- at least as much as Russia.
Worst case: the Turks abandon the FSA/Al Zenki head-choppers because they don't
want to start WWIII with Russia. The U.S. will turn into Al Zenki's air force and
'support' their land-grabbing. CJTF-OIR commander Townsend will send the 101st to ar
Raqqa and maybe Deir Ez Zor to clean up our mess, but then pull out and abandon Syria
(the WW III thing) to roving gangs of well-armed head-choppers. It will be a
hell-hole of violence, but since no ISIS-held territory will be left on the map,
we'll declare victory and 'Mission: Accomplished!" just like we did in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Putin: "Do you now realize what you have done?"
Americans: "Huh? Do you mean us? Hey - look over there! SQUIRREL!"
What I DO like about this story is that it's a Golden Opportunity for Vlad to test
Trump's sincerity BEFORE he becomes POTUS. I'd like Russia to start slaughtering
Obama's Ter'rists in Syria, en masse, tomorrow morning. It's a reliable way to find
out how much 'daylight' there is between the Trump Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine -
keeping in mind that this slice of Hopie Changie-ness has nothing whatsoever to do
with President-elect Trump.
@11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave
Syria. The loss of face would be appalling, and it's unnecessary. If in fact the US
is coordinating with Russia and Syria, there's no loss of face, and Russia has always
accommodated the US presence in all its public pronouncements, conditional on that
coordination.
I think b's take makes sense - there were two sets of plans on
Obama's desk, and these moves are the Trump set.
There remains that school of thought long speculating that part of the US
"deep state" for lack of a better term, supported Trump as the man to reverse some of
these disastrous policies that simply can no longer win, and which must be walked
back from with as much tough face-saving as possible.
Personally, I'm curious to see what Trump's support turns out to be in the serving
military. Since I'm no expert, I'd like to see analysis one day that shows a war
between the Pentagon and the CIA, with the soldiers winning, and choosing Trump.
"... The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts. ..."
"... The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given them by their misguided American benefactors. ..."
"... The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. ..."
"... The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama failures in the basics of statecraft. ..."
"... Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush, he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture - ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare. ..."
The origins of Daesh, known commonly as the Islamic State or ISIS, tie back directly to Obama
and Clinton policy delusions and half measures of the Iraq and Syria conflicts.
With the recent release of an August 2012
classified intelligence memo to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton detailing the presence
of the organization that became ISIS among the Syrian oppositional forces supported by the West,
it's important to remember the history of exactly how the Islamic State arose from the ashes of a
failed Obama/Clinton foreign policy.
The Syrian "Arab Spring" agitations that began in March 2011, where majority Sunnis rebelled against
an Assad run Alawite Shia Ba'th Party, quickly dissolved into a multi sided proxy war. Clinton State
Department policy grew into helping these Sunni rebels under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army
(FSA)" with weapons, money and diplomatic support.
However, the reality is that the FSA existed only in the minds of the State Department leadership.
The FSA exerted zero control over the dozens of rival militias fighting each other and the Assad
regime in Damascus. The Syrian Rebel groups were like dozens of hungry baby vultures in a nest all
competing for resources, and the worst and meanest destroyed their counterparts using the aid given
them by their misguided American benefactors.
The Sunni Arab Gulf states piled on behind the U.S. government to help their Sunni brethren
with more arms and cash. The result was a true race to the bottom of Syrian Rebel groups. All
the while the Assad regime's traditional allies of Russia and Iran provided weapons, training, and
even thousands of fighters themselves to combat the U.S. supported Sunni rebels. The Obama/Clinton
team couldn't even do a proxy war correctly.
The chaos sewn globally by ISIS today grew directly from the bad seeds planted by the Clinton/Obama
failures in the basics of statecraft.
... ... ...
Obama/Clinton continued to approach the Middle East with the same naivety that led the Bush
Administration into Iraq in the first place. For all of the criticism that Obama levied on Bush,
he continued to apply a deeply delusional Washington perspective to Middle Eastern politics and culture
- ignoring all we should have learned in 13 years of Iraq conflict and warfare.
Erik Prince is a former Navy SEAL, founder of Blackwater, and currently a frontier market
investor and concerned parent.
" An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters
flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS,
Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"
.,. ... ...
Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State
positions.
According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated
incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments
since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish
government.
US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case,
according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were
dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the
war.
In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the
group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that
two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down,
with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash,
but no response ever came.
Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other
operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely
disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia
funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.
Turkish special forces operatives
have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister
was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American
officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve
of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments,
have coincided with
a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .
Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because
they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni
groups in the region." Saudi government officials,
Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
By Daniel
Larison James Traub gamely
tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome
as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:
As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military
officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's
counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there,
than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed
from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she
advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between
her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see
mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House.
Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.
In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them,
and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the
military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want
to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice,
but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't
make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of
Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress
will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging
her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her
to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was
unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency?
In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based
on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards
do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something"
in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she
is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies
in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.
Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:
She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will
try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism.
She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking
consensus.
I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced.
I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount
of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.
That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention
in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of
"no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were
still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility."
All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.
It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance,"
because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with
more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis
is a bad idea:
This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would
only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised
to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they
make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.
That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what
is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen
has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and
their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton
may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even
if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more
aggressive than necessary.
"... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
"... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
"... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
"... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
"... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
"... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
"... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
"... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
"... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
"... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on
multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile
military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely
of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists,
which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the
rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of
Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young
girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.
Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither
of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable
level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's
Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant
New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody,
but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers,
former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi
children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."
In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace
or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation
of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention
that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their
ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and
going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.
With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First,
Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully
wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution.
She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign
policy consensus.
Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally
and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what
they would do to employ our military power.
She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus
directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the
exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya
and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely
risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged
threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.
Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly
Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric
Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president,
recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming.
It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar
it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."
Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in
that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no
way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power
vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect
the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been
labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone
would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an
odd position vis-ŕ-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government,
which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus
has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence
on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene
and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."
Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which
have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran,
which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but
she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated
by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely
for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As
one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and
that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also
promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and
has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.
One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions
on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed
to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen
and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have
been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters
without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for
covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies
of their respective governments.
Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated
arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO,
which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views
expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional
coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED
has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.
After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially
true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain
and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a
call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been
seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable
to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we
disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the
beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from
having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely
dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.
Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response
is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to
deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with
defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure
North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think
about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.
Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has
been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap
out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the
George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either
being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports
NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns
over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense
and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.
Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains
a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from
transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming
on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things
up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from
clear.
Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders,
has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael
Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both
are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should
be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran
in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation
of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear
up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories
to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including
Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.
Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians
but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce
serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the
U.S.
Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who
are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know
little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against
foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.
In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals
to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer
that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China
to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase
U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.
So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that
"the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing
endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with
Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would
actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.
"... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
"... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
"... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
"... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
"... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
"... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
"... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
"... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla
over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul
is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.
Islamic State(IS),
the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as
this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious
fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military
experience.
These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their
nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little
discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.
In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a
collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by
means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.
What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan,
and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used
against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow
the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine
and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.
ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage
they have inflicted on the Arab world.
Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS
town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing
around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces
fight the Damascus regime.
Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important
role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support
for IS.
The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't
be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders
of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications.
Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.
Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket
batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power
The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army
and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US
combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces.
Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery
ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.
For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's
fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington
arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.
The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control
Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area
where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening
right now.
In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to
air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and
guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.
IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks.
Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed
military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa
When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against
the paper tiger of ISIS.
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say that (a) war is deeply
ingrained in society; and (b) society over and over again decides to engage
in war.
There is a growing discourse around point (a): people are starting
to unpack the idea that "war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying "war is part of human
nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point (b). At least in the
United States, I think people continue to believe that war is a societal
choice. I think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the people
- through
Congress - maintaining control over the decision to go to war. As it stands
now, as a practical matter, that's not really what's happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical US military spending
below. It shows that there was a time when military spending went up when
the US began to engage in a specific war, and then went back down after that
war. Later, that pattern changed.
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say
that (a) war is deeply ingrained in society; and (b)
society over and over again decides to engage in
war.
There is a growing discourse around point
(a): people are starting to unpack the idea that
"war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying
"war is part of human nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point
(b). At least in the United States, I think people
continue to believe that war is a societal choice. I
think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the
people
- through Congress - maintaining control
over the decision to go to war. As it stands now, as
a practical matter, that's not really what's
happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical
US military spending below. It shows that there was
a time when military spending went up when the US
began to engage in a specific war, and then went
back down after that war. Later, that pattern
changed.
It is very interesting to consider
why
this change occurred. (Perhaps that's a topic for a
later blog post or two.)
But I think the more fundamental point is:
at
some point
US society
stopped being the
"decider" about war.
The US began to engage in
war, and more war, and more war . . . but
US
society
was no longer really making that
decision in any real way.
(Think about US military action during your
lifetime. In what ways, if any, did society at large
determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this
cause us to do differently?
(Think about US military action during your lifetime. In what ways, if
any, did society at large determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this cause us to do differently?
"... From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies. ..."
"... These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo. ..."
"... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. ..."
"... We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home. ..."
I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate
wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll
back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and
security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media
would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected,
the battle of ideas now becomes critical.
The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful
foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's
successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns.
From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke
all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what
we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as
usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.
Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles
Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign
policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions
of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive
effort to "rid the world of evil-doers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll
found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than
50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent
said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.
These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly
approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.
We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will
fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists
will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this
election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet,
but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.
What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those
who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect
our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is
not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change.
No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military
budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on.
Just come home.
Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.
The author is a neocon...
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based
one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
Notable quotes:
"... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
"... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and
the author, most recently, of The Race
for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available
from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published
at TomDispatch
... ... ..
With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald
Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear
button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges
of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure
for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she
commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated
by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III
over Syria," he told
reporters in Florida last month.
For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated
discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate
is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important
reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment,
for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional"
(non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be
moving dangerously lower.
Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or
China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse
yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will
face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have
thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.
No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of
acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include
a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear
wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one
area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate.
The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type
and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet
Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and
their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat
to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same
to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or
battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or
Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but
still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this
lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders
on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents
to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of "
mutually assured
destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would,
in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.
Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the
Soviet Union began deploying the
SS-20 intermediate-range
ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded
with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the
Pershing-II ballistic missile
in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe
and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear
conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President
Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty.
That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems -
banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and
5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to
uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers,
the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep
cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others,
including the
New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.
... ... ...
To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a
U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They
point, in particular, to the
build-up
of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions
in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of
promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering
its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and
training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.
... ... ...
On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a
new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also
known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed
in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what
might be heading their way.
In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis,
leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for
twitchy trigger fingers
and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn
take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.
No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed
piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles
are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap
of the next president.
scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and
claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election,
and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.
But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is
likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise
in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward
Russia.
"Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to
use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to
turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR
tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons
have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.
So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership
through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No
Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia
is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)
It is what it is. We are where we are.
NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.
UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War
I is their utter mediocrity; see
this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you
want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.
Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking
first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example,
my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial
a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to
duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians
think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.
He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of
the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield
nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon
administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out
a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction.
The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold
is a way to split Europe from the US.
This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing
that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.
How could the author make such an omission?
The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders
in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction,
and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..
The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike
will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't
need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable
and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.
The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not
launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.
We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck
you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all
those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality
research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's.
People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top
of the radiation poisoning.
People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think
ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets
of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory
of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept
are low.
Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?
They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people
are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties
(or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).
Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use
of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable
measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.
Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied
on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO
had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition
of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.
Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?
That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been
associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may
be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:
"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American
history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear
power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager
to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed
to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military
contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik
satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic
growth."
This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story.
There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored
research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right
has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs.
Its support made these accomplishments possible.
This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need
to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this
as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote
an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.
1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.
2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war.
If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces
results.
3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
The War Party called the Peace Party Nazis in 1941, Communists in 1951, Soviet dupes in 1961,
dirty hippies in 1971 … must I go on? In 2011, those who heed George Washington's counsel to seek
"peace and harmony with all" will be called mullah-headed appeasers of Irano-fascism.
We live in an age in which one is free to view pornography that would make de Sade wince and gore
that would make Leatherface retch, yet we have less "free speech," as the Founders would have conceived
it, than ever before. The range of permissible political opinions has narrowed to encompass the rat-hair's
breadth separating Mitt Romney from Joe Lieberman, and woe betide the straggler who wanders away
from the cage.
Blame war. Blame TV. Blame the nationalization of political discourse, as regional variations
and individual peculiarities are washed away by the generic slime of poli-talk shows. Radicals-even
naďve Tea Partiers or idealistic left-wing kids-are dehumanized in ways unthinkable when America
was a free country. No one was barred from the conversation back when there was a conversation. No
dispatch ever read, "Wingnut Henry David Thoreau today issued a manifesto from his compound near
Walden Pond…"
... ... ...
The squeezing out even of establishment dissent-especially since 9/11-has left us with an antiwar
movement so feeble it makes the Esperanto lobby look like the AARP. Enter the new organization Come
Home, America, its name taken from the magnificent 1972 acceptance speech delivered by George McGovern
in the last unscripted Democratic convention.
Discussed in recent issues of this magazine, Come Home, America is based on the now decidedly
radical premise that young men and women belong home, with their families and in their communities,
rather than fighting needless wars on the other side of the globe. I am a small part of what I hope
will become a chorus of patriotic dissent ringing from Main Street and Copperhead Road and Martin
Luther King Boulevard, from farm and church and coffeehouse.
This is a excellent interview covering many topics discussed here
regarding ME, USA, geopolitics, Turkeys mission, etc. Its from the Bulgarian perspective.
"Interview conducted by Antoinette Kiselincheva with Boyan Chukov, former adviser on Foreign Policy
and National Security in two governments of the Republic of Bulgaria, former diplomat in Paris and Madrid,
foreign intelligence officer."
"...Q: Does the US seriously they want to deal with DAESH or is it just a show? Because it is funny
to observe how a country which claims to have the most powerful army in the world, lost so much time
in a hopeless effort to chase away a handful of jihadis.
BC: The attack on Mosul can be seen through the prism of globalization. There is another hypothesis.
Do not forget that in June 2014, the city was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special
forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some
very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks in Mosul. So
DAESH procured modern weapons and considerable financial resources. Now they are looking for a decorative
victory in Mosul to maintain globalism and Pan-Americanism in the face of Hillary Clinton. This is the
reason to believe information that about 1.2 billion dollars is offered to bribe the leaders of the
jihadists to leave Mosul.
Analysts believe that the goal is not primarily to transfer jihadists from Mosul to Aleppo and Rakka,
but for DAESH fighters to be transferred to northern Afghanistan, where weapons are stored in seven
(again) poorly protected US bases. There are serious suspicions that the US special forces will once
more try to play in Afghanistan, the elegant scheme of June 2014 in Mosul, with the transfer of weapons
in a theatrical way. The placement of DAESH in Afghanistan will allow the jihadists to deploy an offensive
line on Herat-Mara with the task to reaching the port of Turkmenbashi (Krasnovodsk) in Turkmenistan
and to continue their offensive along the Caspian Sea toward Kazakhstan and the Russian Volga region."
US national interest automatically receive a soteriological status (Soteriology – the
notion of salvation through Christ), US universality and value system becomes a
sacred and religious complex,"spiritual obviousness" and a "moral imperative."
I see this 'Christian' emphasis in most all Russian propaganda. Katehon is only the
most obvious of them all. Soteriology is the notion of the salvation of society through
religion, and it was perfected in India, if not invented there, and was adapted to
Thailand, as Christine Gray detailed in
Thailand: The Soteriological State in the 1970s
, in order to enable the exploitation
of the people by the apparatchiks in Bangkok and AC/DC for their distinct purposes.
The collapse of the Syrian state is required by the US to finally trigger chaos in
the Middle East, which the Caliphate will then bring across Eurasia and Europe. This
will allow Washington to eliminate alternative military, political and economic
centers, primarily Russia and China. Consequently by wreaking havoc in Asia and
Africa, and as a result of structures organized by Soros, Europe fell into a very
difficult migrant situation (because of the betrayal of European elites). Further
terrorist acts by jihadists in major European countries, worsened the economic
attractiveness of the European economy. The dollar system in the world, is in
critical condition and can not withstand the debt overload. A war in Syria is a handy
tool to destabilize the American competitors in the economic race. This is why
Beijing out of the role of a neutral observer in the Syrian crisis. In Syria there
are 1000 fighters of the Chinese special forces, pursuing and destroying jihadists of
Uighur origin. An agreement was signed between Damascus and Beijing. Chinese presence
on Syrian territory like that of the Russians and Iranians is in line with
international law.
Stark as it is ... if it looks like a duck ... the peoples of the individual European
nations need to get hold of themselves and exit, or destroy an re-create the EU. It has
been suborned by the USA and they are in the USA'a sights as clearly as are Russia and
China.
No matter which of the 'effective' candidates is elected on Tuesday ... the only
thing that will be communicated by his/her election is the impotence of the US populace
when it comes to reigning in the neo-con putsch there that has brought all this death,
devastation, destruction, and deceit about.
And certainly it is no reach to envision the US destroying Erdogan at this point, and
adding Turkey to it's list of states destroyed in the name of 'democracy and freedom'.
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions
regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.
from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country.
this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.
As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is
true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans
don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve
this !!!!
+Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable
for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries
is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants
the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East
is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal
waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the
USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan
Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and
his cohorts are the culprits.
basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have
the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's
lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who
is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean
I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will
go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but
Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more
like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around
and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally
isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??
The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them
money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones.
ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons
and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the
threat it is today.
putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers
the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression
US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they
don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and
other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics
are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time
for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised
that your house will be burned some day.
Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated
and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin
kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless.
TRUMP/PENCE 2016
With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a
narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And
this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.
Wall Street and the Pentagon greeted the onset of 2016 as a 'banner year', a glorious turning
point in the quest for malleable regimes willing to sell-off the most lucrative economic resources,
to sign off on onerous new debt to Wall Street and to grant use of their strategic military bases
to the Pentagon.
Brazil and Argentina, the most powerful and richest countries in South America and the Philippines,
Washington's most strategic military platform in Southeast Asia, were the objects of intense US political
operations in the run-up to 2016.
In each instance, Wall Street and the Pentagon secured smashing successes leading to premature
ejaculations over the 'new golden era' of financial pillage and unfettered military adventures. Unfortunately,
the early ecstasy has turned to agony: Wall Street made easy entries and even faster departures once
the 'honeymoon' gave way to reality. ; The political procurers persecuted center-left incumbents
but, were soon to have their turn facing prosecution. The political prostitutes, who had decreed
the sale of sovereignty, were replaced by nationalists who would turn the bordello back into a sovereign
nation state.
This essay outlines the rapid rise and dramatic demise of these erstwhile 'progeny' of Wall Street
and the Pentagon in Argentina and Brazil, and then reviews Washington's shock and awe as the newly
elected Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte embraced new ties with China while proclaiming, 'We
are no one's 'tuta' (puppy dog)!'
Argentina and Brazil: Grandiose Schemes and Crapulous Outcomes
The international financial press was ecstatic over the election of President Mauricio Macri in
Argentina and the appointment of former Wall Street bankers to his cabinet. They celebrated the ouster
of the 'evil populists', accusing them of inflating economic results, reneging on debt obligations
and discouraging foreign lenders and investors. Under the Macri regime all market obstacles were
to be removed and all the bankers trembled with anticipation at the 'good times' to come.
After taking office in December 2015, President Macri unleashed the 'animal instincts' of the
market and the carrion birds flocked in. US 'vulture funds' scooped up and demanded payment for on
old Argentine debt 'valued' at $3.5 billion – constituting a 1,000% return on their initial investment.
A devaluation of the peso of 50% tripled inflation and drove down wages by 20%.
Firing over 200,000 public sector employees, slapping 400% price increases on utilities and transport,
driving small and medium size firms into bankruptcy and enraged consumers into the streets ended
the honeymoon with the Argentine electorate quite abruptly. This initial massive dose of free enterprise
'medicine' was prescribed by the local and Wall Street bankers and investors who had promised a new
golden era for capitalism!
Now that he had banished the 'populists', Macri was free to tap into the international financial
markets. Argentina raised $16.5 billion from a bond sale taken up by the big bankers and speculators,
mostly from Wall Street, who were eager to cash in on the high rates in the belief that there was
no risk with their champion President Macri at the helm. Wall Street based its giddy predictions
on a mere three-month experience with Mauricio!
But then… some of the hedge fund managers began to raise questions about the viability of Mauricio
Macri's presidency. Instead of reducing the fiscal deficit, Macri began to increase public spending
to offset mass discontent over his triple digit increases in utility fees and transportation, the
mass layoffs in the public sector and the slashing of pension funds.
The major banks had counted on the abrupt devaluation of the currency to invest in the export
sector, but instead they were confronted with a sudden 11% appreciation of the peso and a skyrocketing
inflation of 40% leading to high interest rates. As a result, the economy fell even deeper in recession
exceeding minus 3% for the year.
While most Wall Street bankers still retain some faith in the Macri regime, they are not willing
to fork-over the kind of cash that might allow this increasingly unpopular regime to survive. What
keep Wall Street on board the sinking ship are the political and ideological commitments rather than
any objective assessment of their protégée's dismal economic performance. Wall Street counts on free
market bankers appointed to the ministries, the massive purge of social services (health and education)
personnel and the lucrative bond sales to cover the burgeoning deficit. They hope the vast increase
in profits resulting from increased utility fees and the sharp cuts in salaries, pensions and subsidies
will ultimately lead them into the promised land.
Wall Street has expressed dismay over Macri's failure to stimulate growth – in fact GDP is falling.
Furthermore, their 'golden boy' failed to attract productive investments. Instead thousands of Argentine
small and medium businesses have 'gone under' as consumer spending tanked and extortionate tariffs
were slapped on vital public utilities and transport – devastating profits. Inflation has undermined
the purchasing power of the vast majority of households. Wall Street speculators, concentrating on
fixed-rate peso denominated debt, are at risk of losing their shirts.
In other words, the administration's 'free enterprise' regime is based largely on attracting foreign
loans, plundering the national treasury, firing tens of thousands of public sector workers and slashing
spending on social services and business-friendly subsidies. Macri has yet to generate any large-scale
investment in new innovative productive sectors, which might sustain long-term growth.
Already facing growing discontent and a general strike of private and public sector workers, the
'bankers' regime' lacks the political links with the trade unions to neutralize the growing opposition.
ORDER IT NOW
To hold back the growing tidal wave of discontent, President Macri had to betray his overseas
investors by boosting fiscal spending, which has had little or no impact on the national economy.
Wall Street's hopes that President Mauricio Macri would inaugurate a 'golden era' of free market
capitalism lasted less than a year and is turning into a real fiasco. Rising foreign debt, economic
depression and class warfare ensures Macri's rapid demise.
Brazil: Wall Street's Three Month 'Whirl-Wind' Honeymoon
Most of the current elected members of the Brazilian Congress, Senate and the recently-installed
(rather than elected) President, as well as his cabinet, are in trouble: The hero, Michael Temer
and his argonauts, chosen by Wall Street to privatize the Brazilian economy and usher in another
'golden dawn' for finance capital, now all face criminal changes, arrest and long prison sentences
for money laundering, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.
In less than four months, the entire political edifice constructed to impeach the elected President
Dilma Rousseff and then de-nationalize key sectors of the economy, is shaking. So much for the financial
press's proclamation of a new era of "business friendly" policies in Brazilia.
The pundits, politicians, journalists and editors, who prematurely celebrated the appointment
of Michael Temer to the Presidency by legislative coup, now have to face a new reality. The key to
understanding the rapid collapse of the New Right project in Brazil lies in the growing 'rap sheets'
of the very same politicians who engineered the ouster of Rousseff.
Eduardo Cunha, the ex-president of the Congress in Brasilia, used his influence to ensure the
super majority of Congressional votes for the impeachment. Cunha was godfather to ensuring the appointment
of Michael Temer as interim president.
Cunha's influence and control over the Congress was based on his wide network of bribes and corruption
involving over a hundred members of congress, including the newly anointed President Temer.
Once Cunha secured the ouster of Rousseff, the Brazilian elite washed their collective hands of
the 'fixer', overwhelmed by the stench of his corruption. In September 2016, Cunha was suspended
from Congress and lost his immunity. One month later, he was arrested on over a dozen charges, including
fraud and tax evasion. It was public knowledge that Cunha had squirreled away a 'tidy nest' of over
$70 million in Swiss banks.
Cunha directed (extorted) public and private firms to finance the campaigns of many of his political
colleagues. He had intervened to secure bribes for President Temer, his foreign minister and even
the next presidential hopeful, Jose Serra. One of the most powerful representatives of the new regime,
Moreira Franco, Grand Wizard of the Privatization Program, was 'in hock' to Cunha.
As all this has come to light, Cunha has been negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecutor and
judges in return for his 'singing' a few arias. He is facing over a hundred years in jail; his wife
and daughter face trial; Eduardo Cunha is prepared to talk and finger political leaders to save his
own neck. Most knowledgeable observers and judicial experts fully expect Cunha to bring down the
Temer Administration with him and devastate the leadership of Temer's Brazilian Democratic Movement
Party, as well as ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso's Brazilian Social Democratic Party.
The Brazilian elite, Wall Street bankers and their mass media propagandists, who wrote and directed
the impeachment plot scenario are now discredited and bereft of political front men. Their expectations
of a new 'golden era of free market capitalism' in Brazil has turned into a political mad scramble
with every politico and corporate leader desperate to save his own skin and illicit fortune by denouncing
each other.
With the demise of the 'Brazilian takeover', Wall Street and Washington are bereft of key markets
and allies in Latin America.
The Philippines: The Duterte turn from the US to China
In April 2014, Washington 'secured' an agreement granting access to five strategic military bases
in the Philippines critical to its 'pivot to target' China. Under the outgoing President 'Noynoy'
Aquino, Jr. the Pentagon believed it had an 'iron-clad' agreement to organize the Philippines as
its satrap and military springboard throughout Southeast Asia. Washington even prodded the Aquino
government to bring its Spratly Island dispute with China before the obscure Permanent Court of Arbitration
in the Hague. Washington anticipated using the Court's 'favorable' ruling as a pretext to confront
the Chinese.
All this has changed with the June 2016 ascent to the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte: In only four
months, all Washington's imperial designs had been swept off the table. By October 21, 2016 President
Duterte announced he would end military exercises with Washington because they threatened Philippine
sovereignty and made his country vulnerable to a military confrontation with China. He promised to
end sea patrols of disputed waters that the US uses to harass China in the South China Sea.
In advance of the Philippines President's meeting with China, he had already declared that he
would not press the Dutch-based ruling over the South China Sea island dispute against Beijing but
rely on diplomacy and compromise. During the China meeting President Duterte declared that the two
countries would engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve the Spratly Islands as well as other
outstanding issues. The 'agreement' over US access to bases in the Philippines was put in doubt as
the President declared "a separation from the US" and promised long-term, large scale economic and
investment ties with China. Undergirding the Philippines pivot to China were 13 trade and investment
agreements worth more than $20 billion, covering financing of infrastructure, transport, social projects,
tourism, industry and agriculture.
The military base agreement, signed by the notoriously servile ex-President Aquino without Congressional
approval, was review by the Philippine Supreme Court and can be revoked by the new President Duterte
by decree.
Inside of four months, the US strategy of armed encirclement and intervention against China has
been dealt a major blow. The newly emerging China-Philippines linkage strikes a fatal blow to Washington's
overtly militarist 'pivot' against China.
Conclusion
2016 opened with great fanfare: The defeat of the two major center-left governments (Argentina
and Brazil) and the advent of hard-right US-backed regimes would inaugurate a 'golden era of free
market capitalism'. This promised to usher in a prolonged period of profit and pillage by rolling
back 'populist' reforms and creating a bankers paradise. In Southeast Asia, US officials and pundits
would proclaim another 'golden era', this time of rampant militarism, encircling and provoking China
on its vital sea lanes, and operating from five strategic military bases obtained through a Philippine
Presidential decree by an unpopular and recently replaced puppet, 'Noynoy' Aquino, Jr.
These dreams of 'golden eras' lasted a few months before objective reality intruded.
By the autumn of 2016 the rightist regimes had been replaced in the Manila by a colorful ardent
nationalist, while the 'banker boys' in Brasilia faced prison, and the 'Golden Boys' of Buenos Aires
were mired in deep crisis. The notion of an easy Rightist restoration was based on several profound
misunderstandings:
The belief that the reversal of social reforms and denial of popular demands would smoothly
give way to an explosion of foreign financing and investment was shattered when private bond purchases
profited the financial sector but did not bring in large-scale productive investment. Devaluation
of the currency was followed by skyrocketing inflation, which led to fiscal deficits and the loss
of business confidence.
Washington's promotion of 'corruption investigations' started with prosecuting democratically
elected center-left politicians and ended up with the arrest of Wall Street's own protégés encompassing
the entire right-wing political class and decimating the 'Golden' regimes.
The belief that long-term hegemonic relations, based on client regimes in Asia, could resist
the attraction of signing trade and investment agreements with the rising Chinese mega-economy,
while sacrificing vital economic development, and relegating their masses to more stagnation and
unemployment, collapsed with the massive electoral of nationalist Rodrigo Duterte as President
of the Philippines.
In fact, these and other political assessments among the decision makers in Washington and on
Wall Street were proven wrong leading to a strategic retreat of the empire in both Latin America
and Asia. The policy failures were not merely 'mistakes' but the inevitable results of changing structural
conditions embedded in a declining empire.
These decisions were based on a calculus of power, rooted in class and national relations that
may have held true two decades ago. At the dawn of the new millennium the US still dominated Asia
and China was not yet an economic alternative for its neighbors eager for investment. Washington
could and did dictate policy in Southeast Asia.
Twenty years ago, the US had the economic leverage to sustain the neoliberal policies of the Washington
Consensus throughout Latin America.
Today the US continues to pursue policies based on anachronistic power relations, seeming to ignore
the fact that China is now a world power and a viable economic trade and investment alternative successfully
competing for markets and influence in Asia. Washington is failing to compete in that marketplace
and, therefore, can no longer rely on docile client state.
Washington cannot effectively control and direct large-scale capital flows to shore-up its newly
installed rightist regimes in Argentina and Brazil as they crumble under their own corruption and
incompetence. Meanwhile the world is watching a domestic US economy, mired in stagnation with its
own political elites torn by corruption and scandals at the highest level, and staging the most bizarre
presidential campaign in its history. Corruption has become the mode of governing under conditions
of deregulation and rule by political warlords. Political allegiance to the empire and open doors
to foreign pillage do not attract capital when those making political decisions are facing prison
and the business 'doormen' are busy stuffing their suitcases with cash and making a mad-dash for
the airports!
For Wall Street and the Pentagon, Latin America and Asia are lost opportunities – betrayals to
be mourned at the officers clubs and exclusive Manhattan restaurants. For the people in mass social
movements these are emerging opportunities for struggle and change.
The strenuous US effort to rebuild its empire in Latin America and Southeast Asia has suffered
a rapid succession of blows. Washington can still seize power but it lacks the talent and the favorable
conditions to hold it.
The vision of a Brazilian state, build on the edifice of the privatized oil giant, Petrobras,
and the political incarceration of its left adversaries, with foreign capital attracted and seduced
by political procurers, pimps and prostitutes, has ended in a debacle.
In this vacuum, it will be up to the new governments and peoples' movements to seize the opportunity
to advance their struggles and explore political and economic alternatives. The aborted rightist
power grab inadvertently has done the peoples' movements a great favor by exposing and ousting the
corrupt and compromised center-left regimes opening the door for a genuine anti-imperialist transformation.
"... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
"... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
"... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
"... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
"... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
"... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
"... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
"... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
"... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
"... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
"... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
"... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
"... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
"... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
"... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
"... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
"... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
"... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign
policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions
on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes
the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative
compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.
Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as
do I). In
a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these
points. Some excerpts (taken from
this partial transcript part 9, 10):
Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington
establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's
ever been before.
Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would
have been in much better shape.
We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
...
Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools
and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.
Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start
a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World
War III.
Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get
us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War
III.
The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and
over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.
Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump
surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical.
He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan
had to take back in the end when he introduced the
biggest
tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans
at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.
Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go
to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business
and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped
identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real
voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues
is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be
less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than
she openly claims.
Clinton assures us that Trump is
Putin's puppet who
will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin
order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?
With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed.
... ... ..
The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to
account for her " We came,
we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed)
pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations
with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery
and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?
... ... ...
Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM |
Permalink
She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle)
is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US
military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most
of "academe".
In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George
Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has
donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.
On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there
I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of
her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin
grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he
has the advantage of being inept.
no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that
he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if
he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room
talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.
how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a
chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then
went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave
them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.
clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the
behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched
out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up
it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".
george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not
only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone
telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised
if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect
for themselves or the truth?
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism,
he has the advantage of being inept.
Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe
last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's
Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe"
and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of
incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.
The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is
popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.
My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she
is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned
mess.
Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each
step.
In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.
if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence,
if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..
and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections
is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while
claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead
to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american
living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks
would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i
was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!
If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.
In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer
came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after
the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant
and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she
is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing
bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for
screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".
Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall
like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good
for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8
Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that
football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency
satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which
are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
"...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed..
b,
Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in
with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead.
But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.
Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just
they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?
Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do
anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse
to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna
be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting
the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump
administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't
trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation
full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate
effectively.
Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in
spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between
gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without
paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the
trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging
them.
The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever
creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be
impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate
and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.
Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from
the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got
the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view)
but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be
a step too far for rednecked rethugs.
Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really
matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.
In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete
with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and
love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.
And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place -
so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they
will eventually get even worse.
US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's
supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."
@h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"
Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last
12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That
wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this
is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder -
whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future
is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.
There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they
peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what
they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises &
sell outs to her sponsors.
Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser
evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.
When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary
is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater
chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat.
Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll
negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially
bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying,
then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You
must be kidding" category, in my eyes.
I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.
It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed,
overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil
caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used
his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early
stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's
toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee
him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity
he blew, nor how to recover.
@46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were
built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned
such nonsense.'
I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I
listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration
policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His
"round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization
of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further
assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc.
There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.
on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh
yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The
MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says
sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean?
they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we
will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO
vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch
of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.
good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.
Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the
left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.
I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing
because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they
sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's
the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel
a thing when they do it.
Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese.
Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.
Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:
"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute
confidence in her integrity."
No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through
the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power
– in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute
white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two
parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.
"... it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism". ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic ..."
"... unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup ..."
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or
cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance
between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream
centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point
at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political
and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup
Which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement
at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language
and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful
concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly
preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
"it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the
case for going to war in Iraq".
The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large
number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to
insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for
going to war in Iraq?
I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to
a degree I would not have previously thought possible.
"... The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob. ..."
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet)
home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party
have any incentive to cater to the left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves
that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers
to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually
shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with
that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond
to _The Bell Curve_").
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out
of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves.
Open
question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the
left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime:
the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group
think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism
FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so
everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong
(good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are
the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled:
"Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").
"... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
"... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
"... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
The roster of retired military officers endorsing
Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American
surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied
forces battling the Taliban in
Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own
country.
But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to
Donald
J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy
wisdom by watching television shows.
Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely
connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.
After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but
exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated
by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.
Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.
"When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq
and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours
in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."
In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's
promises to fire officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations
with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's
forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.
"He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran
who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last
year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they
changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."
"... Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . . ..."
"... I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics. ..."
"... According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs. ..."
"... "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil." ..."
"... I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US ..."
"... Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism. ..."
John, I agree that tribalism is a huge force in politics, but the way you have defined it describes
a huge portion of how people on all sides vote. All sorts of research shows that a majority of
people seem to use the rubric "what do people of my affiliation believe" to reach conclusions
and then defend them rather than following any particular chain of logic about the actual question.
So I'm not sure what kind of differentiation work the term is doing.
On the other hand I think you're definitely on to something about the change of formerly stable
political orders, and I'm not sure I can identify what it is either. I sort of see what you are
trying to do with the in-group/out-group thing. Those impulses always existed, so I wonder what
has changed? Is it assimilation norms that have weakened? Economic loss or the fear of it in the
'in group'? Fear of going from an 'in group' to an 'out group'? Combination of those?
bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the
inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests
of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it
with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting
anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"That doesn't mean that we should maintain the long-standing taboo on using the word
"racist" to describe such people."
Whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' largely depends on which country you are in; the US has
sufficient minorities able to vote that a 'wide' definition of racism is almost certainly a net
vote-winner.
The UK, Australia, etc. don't. So they have to rely on opposition to racism on moral grounds,
which in turn depends on using a narrow definition.
Alternatively, you could be talking in an academic context, independent of any particular country's
politics, in which case I would imagine that using different words for different things would
be minimally confusing.
LFC 10.30.16 at 10:50 pm Alesis @19
Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life
There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are
conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions,
plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences
that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that
is debatable.
As one who has lived for more than fifty years in the United States, rather than just a few
years here and there as John Quiggin has, I assure him that racism has not been driven underground
here. It has died as a mass sentiment capable of serving as a power base for such figures as Lyndon
Johnson, George Wallace, or Jimmy Carter.
All had to change their tune to retain or increase their power, and that was about half
a century ago. No aspiring politician could get started today making the kind of racial appeals
they did at the beginning of their political careers, and in the cases of Johnson and Wallace
for a long time thereafter.
There is no mass sentiment for re-establishing separate drinking fountains, toilets, dining
areas, schools, etc. by race or for repealing the Civil War-era amendments to the Constitution.
I even hear rumors that Americans may be receptive to the idea of electing a black President.
My suggestion is to tackle the pandering by the rich party for the poor's votes by appealing
to racism, rather than the racism itself. "You're being played" may work better than "you're wrong".
I also think that the severity continuum of racism needs to be emphasized. We pretty much all
exhibit minor solecisms as we overcome features of our culture and upbringing. When a gentle correction
triggers complaints about monstrous PC allegations, I recommend a response like "Hey, it's no
biggie. You're not Hitler. Why are you taking a dive?"
"Tribalism" in the sense it's being used here has nothing to do with "primitive" tribes; it's
a reference to the ancient Roman tribes (the origin of the word) and the similar Greek phylai,
which were essentially arbitrary groupings of citizens which struggled amongst each other because
of group identification despite all being of the same ethnic group and nation. If there's a better
word for this, it isn't ethnonationalism or fascism.
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am
I think poor to outright horrific epistemology in public discussion creates the basis for a
lot of bad politics. Many have described our current time as a post-truth era. There have been
some efforts towards fact-checking, but these seem to be simple refutations of facts, like Trump
saying
that he didn't say X, when we can play a two-day old tape of him in fact saying X. Part of the
manifestation of "tribalism", is the holding of in-group shibboleths, and the failure to critically
examine them -- for fear that that might weaken their role as weaponized-memes. That and our
politics has severely degenerated into character assassination, much of it unfounded. So we can't
even have a semi-rational discussion about issues, as political actors have to expend all their
efforts fending off attempts to assassinate their reputation, and to level even more damaging
attacks against their enemies.
So we have to start reclaiming decent epistemological practices in our public discussion. I
don't think this is going to be an easy or a quick process. But without it, we are highly vulnerable
to emotion based movements and their demagogues. Graham's conspiracy theory observations, as well
as those of bob@4 and loki@12, are symptoms of this degeneration of epiestemology.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 1:44 am
nastywoman @21 The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US
political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the
same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with
age.
The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am
Racism (and sexism), something described by Tom Magliozzi's "Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis-Unencumbered
by the Thought Process" is impervious to argumentation. I've lost a lot of friends driven mad
first by the Kenyan, and now by that "nasty woman."
Imagine a future scenario of yet another financial crisis the pushes unemployment above 30%
and mere words will certainly fail you.
My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time
as we compose blog posts.
The great problem progressives face is that many , if not most of the working class really
don't want social justice , they want to be the fat cats. And when they don't join the ranks
of the fat cats they are easily convinced that this is because the liberals are stealing from
them to give to the "welfare" people. Trump has expanded to include hordes of invading Mexicans
and Muslims.
Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:20 am
"There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There
are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional
traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There
are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory,
but nowadays even that is debatable."
the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility
of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
1. I have no fucking idea what you got out of my comments, but just to be very clear, I would
almost certainly support, and strongly, almost all _policies_ that you're likely to classify as
"economically populist". (I prefer a term like "socially equitable"-in a material sense, not talking
about symbolic stuff or the politics of recognition here. But e.g. I think repeal of the Hyde
Amendment should go under exactly the same heading as minimum wage increases, trade deals with
strong labor protections, etc.-which kind of thing gets lost when people talk about "economic
populism".)
On the _politics_ you and I each think the other one is dead wrong, and both of us already
know this, and neither of us is about to give half an inch, so I don't think there's much point
in pursuing the argument. But…
2. …Entirely leaving aside racism for a minute, when has it ever seemed plausible that "economic
populism" would be an effective counter to entrenched sexism? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
--
Re WLGR
In contrast to a true petite bourgeoisie, which has no historical memory of the full
trauma of capitalist expropriation, a labor aristocracy on some level is aware that its economically
secure position relative to the still-fully-dispossessed global working class depends on accepting
and defending the racist/nationalist logic of imperial expropriation
I'll have to think about more. My first instinct is to say - there's something to this, but
the contrast is significantly less sharp than that (in both directions), but I need to think it
out more.
WLGR 10.31.16 at 4:18 am
I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with
an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made
narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics.
It would be absurd to claim that nobody who isn't a fascist/racist/ethnonationalist/etc. determines
their political priorities on some level according to ingroup/outgroup morality - speaking from
experience in a US context, cosmopolitan liberals' disdain for "rubes"/"hicks"/"rednecks" from
"flyover country" (probably the very people "tribalist" is intended to denote) could itself be
described as "tribalist" in the sense you mean it, as for that matter could many socialists' disdain
for liberals, or economists' disdain for sociologists, or old-money politicos' disdain for nouveau-riche
boors like Donald Trump, or whatever.
People seem to be shying away from the idea that what defines so-called "tribalists" as a political
force in developed capitalist nation-states is "tribalism" regarding a particular aspect of their
worldview, namely race and nationality. I get that this is a contortion to avoid the politically
charged act of calling people "racists" or "fascists" (although it's perplexing that so many people
here have surrendered to reactionaries' bizarre contention that using these terms even when they're
suitably descriptive is somehow foul play) but insinuating a categorical deficiency of basic human
social consciousness compared to the categorically more enlightened social consciousness of the
accuser is hardly any less insulting, even before you get into the racial implications of the
term itself.
The best comparison I can think of is the way so-called "New Atheists" tend to group their
ideological taxonomy according to the distinction between "rational" and "irrational": both of
these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be
monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and
"irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's. A weaker and more defensible claim of
rationality about a very particular aspect of one's worldview, such as the existence of deities,
leaves open the possibility of irrationality in other aspects of their worldview, such as the
alleged existential threat of Islam (about which many "rationalist" "New Atheists" are famously
paranoid and reactionary). Now imagine the term "irrational" has been used for centuries as a
sloppily interchangeable pejorative for various targets of systematic marginalization, oppression,
enslavement, and genocide.
I would say that after talking to people the republican base is the coalition of
1. Plutocrats
2. Single issue abortion voters
3. Conspiracy theorists and religious conspiracy theorists (end times prophecy mixed with conspiracy)
4. True believers – that is free market types who believe that top end tax cuts and cutting minimum
wage actually help the poor
5. Basket of deplorables you racist/mysoginest you name it
Type 1, 4 and some of 2 have been pealed off the R coalition during the trump campaign due
to how shocking a candidate Trump is. However, type 3 and 5 are more energized than ever. If there
was an effective way to counter type 3 republican voters their coalition would reduce by maybe
half. I know that sounds like a lot but I've lived in the south and have a lot of friends there.
Conspiracy is more powerful than people realize
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 4:57 am
'The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold.'
Not if we count all 'the workers' – who follow and will vote for Trump because he promised
them to bring their jobs back -(with fascistic solutions)
According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not
working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives
and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting
'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs.
These workers – a lot of them who had lost their jobs by US companies outsourcing or terminating
their jobs altogether after the economical collapse of 2008 – are a 'traditional constituency'
of the left – and they should have been supported much better and NOT 'picked up' by Trump.
The link actually takes you to page 2 of the Grenville article. He cites Hochschild on page
1: 'Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right"
captures the intractability of the discontent: "'You are patiently standing in a long line' for
something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting
along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and 'in principle you wish
them well.' But you've waited long, worked hard, 'and the line is barely moving.'
Then 'Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!' Who are these interlopers? 'Some
are black,' others 'immigrants, refugees.'
They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare - 'checks for the listless and idle.' The government
wants you to feel sorry for them."
@50 WLGR "….rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects
of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality"
as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's."
Agreed. Happens here all the time, or used to.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is
interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial
associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word
here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts
I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea
about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at
least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea
of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the
non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own
Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist
isn't the best word.
Porpoise @43: I'm slightly puzzled by your version of classical history.
Yes, the Romans had tribes, dating from the very beginning of their history; these *were* seen
as relating to what you refer to as "primitive tribes", and according to at least one ancient
source reflected the original composition of the Roman people from Latins, Sabines and Etruscans.
Yes, by the late Republic these were largely (not entirely) arbitrary divisions of more or
less homogeneous citizens – but by that date there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they served
any purpose other than organising voting in the comitia tributa; certainly no struggles because
of group identification.
ZM 10.31.16 at 7:45 am bruce wilder,
"The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil."
I think economic populism is problematic really, depending on what policy settings you mean
by "economic populism" I guess.
I remember thinking Australia could have more protectionist policies and that would be a solution
to some of our economic issues, but then I did an economics group project with a woman from Singapore,
and I realised a country like Singapore would be much worse off if other countries resorted to
protectionism as a response to the financial crisis, and I was being unfair thinking more protectionist
policy was the answer.
I don't think that the economic populism of the post-war era is really something we want
to return to - in Australia at least it was connected to the racist White Australia Policy which
was dismantled over time by 1973 and also to sexist policies that benefited male wage earners
with the "living wage" but prevented women from taking up certain jobs or from working after marriage
and that sort of thing.
Also in the post-war era Australia benefitted from trade networks with the UK as part of the
Commonwealth, but I presume that some other countries didn't benefit from that set of international
trade agreements (although I have never looked into what the international trade settings were
to know which countries overall benefited and which countries disbenefited).
I don't think returning to economic populism is a solution. There were a lot of problems,
both within countries with racism and sexism, and also between countries with unfair international
trade agreements.
Any solution to current problems has to be equitable within the nation, and fair between
nations. If economic populism is the answer it has to be a transformed economic populism that
is capable of that, and also of managing our global and local environmental problems.
Also at the moment the Australian federal government is doing the "Racism. It Stops With Me" campaign
around Australia trying to encourage everyday Australians to speak out against racism when they
encounter it in their daily lives. I hope the US government does something similar if Trump loses
the election, I really think anti-racism is better off being bi-partisan, and its a bad long term
strategy by either main party in America to use race to divide voters.
I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US or that their are "conflicting
histories" is pitch perfect example of the difficulty of keeping race in American life in focus
I mentioned in my comment.
There is no region of the US in which race did not play a foundation role. No history of the
US which does not rest in the disenfranchisement of "lower races". From Oregon to Florida. From
New York to California.
From 1700 to 2016 this is an American constant and we will continue to the "Shocked! Shocked!"
That more Trump's arise until we recognize that.
> The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Race too, of course.
It doesn't seem like it would be beyond the power of a single guy who wanted to write a book
to bring a torch and see if there is anything interesting hidden where the lampposts don't shine.
The raw data seems to be available[1], it just needs correlating with polls. That's a 2-3 man
year project, probably doable within a 5 digit budget.
I think I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a strong element in current politics. It
has been for a while, of course. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in
American Politics .
In a democratic system, any party hoping to win has to somehow persuade the voters to vote
for them and not the other party. Hence impugning the judgment or moral character of the opposing
party is one of the obvious strategies. Accusing the other party of actually being crooks (as
opposed to merely making poor decisions, or decisions that benefit some group other than the voters
one wishes to court) takes this a step further. Once a party had taken the "they're a bunch of
crooks" move, it would be surprising if they didn't leap at the chance when they can make a credible
and specific allegation of lawbreaking by their opponent, instead of just relying on non-specific
"would you buy a used car from this man?" rhetoric. ("man" -> "woman" if we're talking about Hilary
Clinton rather than Richard Nixon, but the same principle holds)
The current round of populism seems to go further still, in attributing crookedness not just
to their political opponents but to just about everyone involved in the entire system, e.g. by
alleging that the election might be fraudulent.
The term "conspiracy theory" often has rather dismissive or perjorative connotations, but I
think this basic political pattern could exist even if the opposing party were actually in fact
crooks.
[And over here in the UK, it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the
people about the case for going to war in Iraq. It's less obvious what Blair could actually be
charged with criminally (as opposed to Hilary Clinton), but that hasn't stopped people calling
for his head … possibly in a literal, rather than metaphorical, sense]
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am (#44): great comment, puts the finger on the problem, and deserves
engagement. Unfortunately, all I have to offer are solutions from science-fiction: reliable lie-detectors
and benign A.I. government. But how to avoid the obvious misuses and bad side-tracks on the way
to utopian deployment of such technologies is beyond me. The Internet already gives us the ability
to do our own fact-checking and analysis of issues, but it seems more effective at spreading lies.
MPAVictoria 10.31.16 at 2:29 pm
Unions, unions, and more unions are the answer to the question of what the left should be doing
going forward. Union members are more likely to:
– Vote
– Volunteer in support of progressive campaigns and causes
– Support progressive economic AND social policies
The left's strategy going forward MUST include efforts to increase union density.
js, I guess the most important caveat re: the US (along with other settler societies) is that
many Euro-Americans never actually went through proletarianization themselves, but probably would
have been pushed into the working class they'd stayed in Europe through the heyday of capitalist
industrialization, so they left Europe and joined the metaphorical shock troops of settler-colonialism
in order to avoid it. The important point is that the combined spoils of settler-colonial expropriation,
racial/national hierarchy, and continuing imperialist exploitation in the Third World have largely
spared the much-ballyhooed "white working class" (i.e. labor aristocracy) from the abject poverty
capitalism invariably wreaks on the working class proper - and on some level these people realize
that as long as capitalism exists, this economic safety net is only really justifiable if there's
some fundamental hierarchy of humanity dictating that they as a group deserve to be offered better
lives than the people trying to "steal their jobs" and so on. The extent to which different people
in different situations are compelled to articulate this ideology in fully conscious ways is another
matter, but when they are, terms like "racist", "ethnonationalist", and "fascist" are entirely
descriptive and not the least bit inappropriate.
For anybody who hasn't heard of it, the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
is an accessible exposition of this kind of viewpoint (and for anybody who takes a glance
and can't get past smarming at the crude typesetting and nonstandard semantic choices e.g. "Amerika",
just grow up).
WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social,
or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much
distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist
parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to
point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism". Except
unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic
phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking
about it as a specific mass political movement at all. And again, as annoying as it is to have
pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on,
putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism
from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out
the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am @ 46: '… My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a
time as we compose blog posts.'
Or at least tolerant people who are positive about relationships with the Others even though
they may err. Surely this would be a requirement for achieving equality, because otherwise you
have the good people and the bad people, and the good people would have to defeat, rule over,
or maybe even exterminate the bad people. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the reason Evangelicals
adhere to the Republican Party (and Black people to the Democrats) is that that is the party which,
while it doesn't do much for them, doesn't hate them. We have seen that expressed in the recent
past not only with Trump's success but with the 'basket of deplorables'. Even a petrochemical
plant poisoning your back yard may be preferable to submitting to the power of those who openly
despise you and your kind.
But a lot of people want to fight.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 8:33 pm
Kurt Schuler @41 This seems an odd choice of post on which to claim special authority as a
US resident, given that it's about developments common throughout the developed world, and refers
to Australia and the UK, as well as the US.
The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion,
"working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes
lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.
Right. This is why I think petty bourgeois (petit bourgeois if you want to be all fancy
and French about it) is a better term.
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 9:43 pm
In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right
which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues
like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.
And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification
of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.
As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right,
but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists
who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.
This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United
States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)
"... The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars. Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down. ..."
"... Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the notion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will. ..."
"... The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history. ..."
"... Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant. ..."
"... The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called " political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat. ..."
"... The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear. ..."
"... As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky , the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels. ..."
"... With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait was celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid victory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim : "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine . ..."
"... Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. ..."
"... The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. ..."
"... Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks, bombers , aircraft carriers , and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks. ..."
The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars.
Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is
certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down.
It's not that that budget has never been reduced. At pivotal moments, like the end of World War
II as well as war's end in Korea and Vietnam, there were indeed temporary downturns, as there was
after the Cold War ended. More recently, the
Budget Control Act of 2011
threw a monkey wrench into the Pentagon's plans for funding that would go ever onward and upward
by putting a cap on the money Congress could pony up for it. The remarkable thing, though, is not
that such moments have occurred, but how modest and short-lived they've proved to be.
Take the current budget. It's down slightly from its peak in 2011, when it reached the highest
level since World War II, but this year's budget for the Pentagon and related agencies is nothing
to sneeze at. It comes in at roughly
$600 billion -
more
than the peak year of the massive arms build-up initiated by President Ronald Reagan back in
the 1980s. To put this figure in perspective: Despite troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan dropping
sharply over the past eight years, the Obama administration has still managed to
spend
more on the Pentagon than the Bush administration did during its two terms in office.
What accounts for the Department of Defense's ability to keep a stranglehold on your tax dollars
year after endless year?
Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the
notion that it is the God-given
mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything
it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think
of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed
exceptionalism, if you will.
The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the
entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic
placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts
has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously
dumped in the trash bin of history.
Lockheed Martin, for instance, has put together a handy
map of how its troubled
F-35 fighter jet has created 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The
actual figures are, in fact, considerably lower, but the principle holds: Having subcontractors
in dozens of states makes it harder for members of Congress to consider cutting or slowing down even
a failed or failing program. Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop
buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a
fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in
Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress
added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to
that company's St. Louis area plant.
The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted
for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called
"
political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat.
"SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from
time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy.
In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums
of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear.
For example, the last thing most Americans wanted after the devastation and hardship unleashed
by World War II was to immediately put the country back on a war footing. The demobilization of millions
of soldiers and a sharp cutback in weapons spending in the immediate postwar years rocked what President
Dwight Eisenhower would later dub
the "military-industrial complex."
As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book
Barons
of the Sky , the US aerospace industry
produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly,
major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand
for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels.
Lockheed President Robert Gross was terrified by the potential impact of war's end on his company's
business, as were many of his industry cohorts. "As long as I live," he
said
, "I will never forget those short, appalling weeks" of the immediate postwar period. To be clear,
Gross was appalled not by the war itself, but by the drop off in orders occasioned by its end. He
elaborated in a 1947 letter to a friend: "We had one underlying element of comfort and reassurance
during the war. We knew we'd get paid for anything we built. Now we are almost entirely on our own."
The postwar doldrums in military spending that worried him so were reversed only after the American
public had been fed a steady, fear-filled diet of anti-communism.
NSC-68 , a secret memorandum the National Security Council prepared for President Harry Truman
in April 1950, created the template for a policy based on the global "containment" of communism and
grounded in a plan to encircle the Soviet Union with US military forces, bases, and alliances. This
would, of course, prove to be a strikingly expensive proposition. The concluding paragraphs of that
memorandum underscored exactly that point,
calling for a "sustained buildup of US political, economic, and military strength… [to] frustrate
the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will."
Senator Arthur Vandenberg put the thrust of this new Cold War policy in far simpler terms when
he bluntly
advised President Truman to "scare the hell out of the American people" to win support for a
$400 million aid plan for Greece and Turkey. His suggestion would be put into effect not just for
those two countries but to generate support for what President Eisenhower would later
describe
as "a permanent arms establishment of vast proportions."
Industry leaders like Lockheed's Gross were poised to take advantage of such planning. In a draft
of a 1950 speech, he
noted , giddily enough, that "for the first time in recorded history, one country has assumed
global responsibility." Meeting that responsibility would naturally mean using air transport to deliver
"huge quantities of men, food, ammunition, tanks, gasoline, oil and thousands of other articles of
war to a number of widely separated places on the face of the earth." Lockheed, of course, stood
ready to heed the call.
The next major challenge to armed exceptionalism and to the further militarization of foreign
policy came after the disastrous Vietnam War, which drove many Americans to question the wisdom of
a policy of permanent global interventionism. That phenomenon would be
dubbed the "Vietnam syndrome" by interventionists, as if opposition to such a military policy
were a disease, not a position. Still, that "syndrome" carried considerable, if ever-decreasing,
weight for a decade and a half, despite the Pentagon's Reagan-inspired arms build-up of the 1980s.
With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived
foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein's forces in Kuwait was
celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid
victory parades and celebrations,
President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically
exclaim : "And, by God,
we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."
However, perhaps the biggest threat since World War II to an "arms establishment of vast proportions"
came with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, also in 1991. How to mainline
fear into the American public and justify Cold War levels of spending when that other superpower,
the Soviet Union, the primary threat of the previous nearly half-a-century, had just evaporated and
there was next to nothing threatening on the horizon? General Colin Powell, then chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the fears of that moment within the military and the arms complex
when he
said , "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."
In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending
did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively
quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm
floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the
"rogue state"
doctrine . Resources formerly aimed at the Soviet Union would now be focused on "regional hegemons"
like Iraq and North Korea.
FEAR, GREED, AND HUBRIS WIN THE DAY
After the 9/11 attacks, the rogue state doctrine morphed into the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT),
which neoconservative pundits soon labeled "
World War IV ." The
heightened fear campaign that went with it, in turn, helped sow the seeds for the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, which was promoted by
visions of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and a
drumbeat of Bush administration
claims (all false) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda.
Some administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even
suggested that Saddam was like Hitler, as if a modest-sized Middle Eastern state could somehow
muster the resources to conquer the globe.
The administration's propaganda campaign would be supplemented by the work of right-wing corporate-funded
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And no one should
be surprised to learn that the military-industrial complex and its money, its lobbyists, and its
interests were in the middle of it all. Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example.
In 1997, he became a director of the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice
President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part
of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. Many of its members would,
of course, enter the Bush administration in crucial roles and become architects of the GWOT and the
invasion of Iraq.
The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute
bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed
Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's
former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops
in the field. Other major beneficiaries included firms like
Blackwater and
DynCorp , whose employees guarded US facilities and oil pipelines while training Afghan and Iraqi
security forces. As much as
$60 billion of the funds funneled to such contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan would be "wasted,"
but not from the point of view of companies for which waste could generate as much profit as a job
well done. So Halliburton and its cohorts weren't complaining.
On entering the Oval Office, President Obama would ditch the term GWOT in favor of "countering
violent extremism"-and then essentially settle for a no-name global war. He would shift gears from
a strategy focused on large numbers of "boots on the ground" to an emphasis on
drone strikes , the use of
Special Operations forces , and
massive
transfers of arms to US allies like Saudi Arabia. In the context of an increasingly militarized
foreign policy, one might call Obama's approach "politically sustainable warfare," since it involved
fewer (American) casualties and lower costs than Bush-style warfare, which peaked in Iraq at more
than 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors.
Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino
and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear
factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite
the fact that more tanks, bombers ,
aircraft carriers
, and
nuclear
weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks.
The majority of what the Pentagon spends, of course, has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
But whatever it has or hasn't been called, the war against terror has proven to be a cash cow for
the Pentagon and contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
The "war budget"-money meant for the Pentagon but not included in its regular budget-has been
used to add on tens of billions of dollars more. It has proven to be an effective "
slush fund " for weapons and activities that have nothing to do with immediate war fighting and
has been the Pentagon's preferred method for evading the caps on its budget imposed by the Budget
Control Act. A Pentagon spokesman admitted as much recently by
acknowledging that more than half of the $58.8 billion war budget is being used to pay for non-war
costs.
The abuse of the war budget leaves ample room in the Pentagon's main budget for items like the
overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft, a plane that, at a
price tag of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime, is on track to be the most expensive weapons program
ever undertaken. That slush fund is also enabling the Pentagon to spend billions of dollars in seed
money as a down payment on the department's proposed
$1 trillion
plan to buy a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines. Shutting it
down could force the Pentagon to do what it likes least: live within an actual budget rather continuing
to push its top line ever upward.
Although rarely discussed due to the focus on Donald Trump's abominable behavior and racist rhetoric,
both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump's "
plan " (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation
that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next
decade. The size of a
Clinton buildup is less clear, but she has also pledged to work toward lifting the caps on the
Pentagon's regular budget. If that were done and the war fund continued to be stuffed with non-war-related
items, one thing is certain: The Pentagon and its contractors will be sitting pretty.
As long as fear, greed, and hubris are the dominant factors driving Pentagon spending, no matter
who is in the White House, substantial and enduring budget reductions are essentially inconceivable.
A wasteful practice may be eliminated here or an unnecessary weapons system cut there, but more
fundamental change would require taking on the fear factor, the doctrine of armed exceptionalism,
and the way the military-industrial complex is embedded in Washington.
Only such a culture shift would allow for a clear-eyed assessment of what constitutes "defense"
and how much money would be needed to provide it. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex
that Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 50 years ago is alive and well, and gobbling up
your tax dollars at an alarming rate.
"... Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage? ..."
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each
of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi
was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded
the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was
prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected
an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics –
the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible
for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,
or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars'
worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half
the children are malnourished.
IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need
to be permanently removed from flying status. And the aircraft's mission liaison at CENTCOM needs
to be reamed as well.
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost
of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could
make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.
Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make
strong case".
My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to
declarations
Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they
could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon
saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".
Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC
days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot
Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't
give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about
it for years.
None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch,
they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior
have his way.
Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the
24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe"
bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.
Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security
Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's
office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would
have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these
ulterior motives.
One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc.
and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior
announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing
their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's
flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you
to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".
I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent
completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever
one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.
So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical,
insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth
and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his
administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables...
whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil
fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields
was big part of their calculus to "liberate".
So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.
"... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
"... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
"... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
"... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities
of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the
need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven
considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism
Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous
restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing
broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele
beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater
part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust
and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist
governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least
- to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.
Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies,
and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with
their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than
to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.
Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and
hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where
we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more
than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed
far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far
more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's
invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.
This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population,
working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to
the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable
organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred
of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for
more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and
reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.
Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce
two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists,
mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening
of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.
The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white
heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually
the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply
rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration.
If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their
purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase
their own support.
It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing
Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration
will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have
supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy
is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed
pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.
The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise,
in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of
a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All
this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was
identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.
On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially
in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail,
will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And
real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full
co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment,
funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.
As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia
among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact
that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing
great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration
chooses to take.
Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion,
are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator,
in the generally liberal Washington Post:
"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin
Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism.
These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States.
And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs
of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."
If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be
imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:
"The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either
with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy
stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends
don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11
September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve
of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas
have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national
interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the
victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States -
but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall
Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and
that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US
intelligence does.
Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for
Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy
may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which
again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal
in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender
not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:
"The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and
any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against
it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries
would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because
they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."
Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former
executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican
Party, especially under the present Administration.
No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other
voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states
which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete
the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.
Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president
of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented
the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy
Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this
war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate
the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign
ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace
to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf
States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent
stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into
an anti-American terrorist.
But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would
the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and
given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm
evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have
any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions,
for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of
Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the
Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government.
To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach
of relations and the ending of aid.
There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later
stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked
accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than
Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that
Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and
New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.
Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore
be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab
world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular,
a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes
against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently,
perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame:
the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.
This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab
world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger.
Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances
must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US
and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of
anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions
of hostility to the West.
All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing
a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly
impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the
US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism
usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This
is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict
the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.
An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate
a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic
shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations
forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State
Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness
to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor
contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.
The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and
security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared
tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather
certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition,
and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine
Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign
policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally
or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences
is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the
expense of overall policy.
Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually
to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence
on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals
in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely
different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people
totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation
by advisers, ministers and cliques.
In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats
- real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims.
With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine,
to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little
reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.
The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as
just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal
and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of
the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does,
it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater
dangers for the world.
The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold
War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate
the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty
states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s,
this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily
high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions
of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we
now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.
The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with
China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified.
Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed
by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough
in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a
free-thinker than many of his staff).
The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration
(however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially
ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension
of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity,
thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests,
was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September,
the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system,
and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the
ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus
at least.
How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general
conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority
of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware
that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle,
socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush
team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's
policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s -
was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like
Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in
Europe and East Asia.
The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and
Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer
to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt)
than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated
Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial
complex' came from Eisenhower.
Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of
the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy,
for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment
of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if
we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.
In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge
by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out
of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between
Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the
inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions
continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly,
the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US
in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just
in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered
regimes co-opted as local American clients.
The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what
we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated
a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the
end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.
There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of
them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity.
However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the
Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate
to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe
were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging
them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly
- as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford
to do fifty years ago.
This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans
- as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military
presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican
America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue
to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently.
'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship
could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental
issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.
· Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC.
"... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
"... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
"... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
"... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
"... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
"... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
"... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
"... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
"... Red Storm Rising ..."
"... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
"... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
"... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
"... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
"... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
"... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the
Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore
eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich
points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United
States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American
variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and
widely differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.
And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and
what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and
congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in
the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign
nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism
embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless
validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest
of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because
they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed
American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as
waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry,
painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania
in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator,
not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin
Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses
alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to
serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves
in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As
Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it
cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population
as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is
coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from
empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking
now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short
of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated
to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honorable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another
warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this
says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused
strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
"... The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and the danger is that during Hillary Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic. ..."
"... Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy. ..."
"... And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely brainwashed into this vision. ..."
"... The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive. ..."
"... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
"... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family ..."
"... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on
weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group
of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve
wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion
that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level
of international tension.
Russia was chosen by neocons for the role of scapegoat as it does want to become a vassal country
and represents an obstacle on establishing the US world hegemony by being the nuclear armed state.
Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic
crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal
propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic
interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon
manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy.
Hillary worldview includes messianism of Southern Baptist variety, a flavor of American nationalism
based on quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of the USA [pseudo]democratic
system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world.
So her election meads continued megalomania in militarist quarters while the infrastructure
crumbles under the growing costs on maintaining the global neoliberal empire ruled by the USA.
And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on
foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around
it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely
brainwashed into this vision.
Opposition to the US militarism is almost non-existent due contemporary US popular culture
infused with the language of militarism and American exceptionalism. As Bacevich on noted:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash
with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter
a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are
paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that
nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
So while the election of Trump is a very dangerous experiment with its own considerable risks,
especially on domestic front, the election of Hillary would be a tragedy.
The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was
a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S.
firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.
By Robert Parry
A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States
and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media
of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular
Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered
off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels
in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S.
presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton
has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.
Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15
years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist
group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the
preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.
For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating
primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the
barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed
as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families
peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.
The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of
wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has
come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents.
(There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake
war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")
Rare Glimpse of Truth
Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through,
even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages,
such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing
a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:
"The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were
continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing
themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. The rebels argue that they
cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed
and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers." (You might
note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust
aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments
violate international law.)
What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the
recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the
brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles.
The Times reported:
"The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements
of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a
militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line
Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been
vetted by the United States and its allies."
The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East
Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted
rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments
against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the
brunt of front-line fighting."
Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have
been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles.
"In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from
regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne
multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."
The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into
Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against
Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an
ally of Al Qaeda....
"... Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative ..."
"... "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place. ..."
"... In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist. ..."
"... The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness. ..."
"... Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic. ..."
"... 'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics. ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death" ..."
"... Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. ..."
Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that
"tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative (basically
this imagery condensed into a single signifier) that shouldn't play such a pivotal role in
any remotely serious understanding, let alone one in which "tribalism" is used to describe
the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first
place.
As described in an earlier thread about all of this, my preference would be not to beat around
the bush and go with "fascism" plain and simple, and even if one isn't comfortable making that
assertion directly, "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism"
in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed. Call me crazy but this seems like
a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.
Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating
racist imagery in one's own language.
likbez 10.30.16 at 12:05 pm
@16
"ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis
with little or no extra clarification needed.
While I agree that "tribalism" a bad term that clouds the issue, I think the form of nationalism
that prevails now can be called "cultural nationalism" not "ethnonationalism". In a sense "cultural
nationalism" is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American
exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.
John Quiggin 10.30.16 at 7:33 pm
@WLGR I'm happy to reconsider terminology. But I've been using "tribalism" for a kind of politics
that's not necessary as extreme as ethno-nationalism, let alone fascism.
In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside
the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could
be described as racist/white nationalist.
likbez 10.30.16 at 7:39 pm
@20
The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena
that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness.
Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'.
What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I
don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and
imperial associations of 'tribes' with
'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good
word here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in
the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with,
because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have
a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians
(or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people
from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally
accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the
tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional
because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo
immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement
as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think).
Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree
tribalist isn't the best word.
WLGR
10.31.16 at
3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
It seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from
culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial
understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized
according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural
characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating
factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is
itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted
in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of
Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's
still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless
I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between
Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by
mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm
partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the
state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of
group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition
is also good) funnily
enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin
appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is
explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup
differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the
outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as
a specific mass political movement at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of
twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this
noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from
one's everyday understanding of the world,
How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't
fall into Al-Qa`idah hands
"American and other Western intelligence officials have
expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel
formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda
that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or
after the collapse of the government.... A small number of
CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern
Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian
opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to
fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a
fool-proof system at hand.
The CIA operatives ask the person
in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no,
he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says
yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run
but don't use them against us one day, OK?
Weeks before the Obama administration and other Western
nations recognized a new Syrian opposition coalition as "the
legitimate representative" of the Syrian people, Syrian
rebels were receiving training in the use of light and heavy
weapons with the backing of the Jordanian, British and U.S.
governments, participants in the training have told
McClatchy....
By November, another rebel said, the training had expanded
to anti-tank weapons and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.... *
This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has
been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of
Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller
to tell you how things are going in Syria?
What this article really reveals is that Western media
were deliberately or ignorantly spreading the notion that
Syrian rebels were desperate for arms and ammunition and that
they were getting no external support whatsoever when tons
(literally, tons) of shipments were arriving to them from as
early as 2012.
*
"The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid
black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to
tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's
banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an
informed paper.
I am dying to know this: Who are the "secular opposition
groups supported by the West" who are fighting in Syria? Give
me one name, or one unit? Who?
"The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled
grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the
Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries
overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials
said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake
of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more
secular opposition groups supported by the West." *
"Some Syrians who seek a more secular revolution blame the
lack of Western support for driving the rebellion into the
arms of the extremists". * So if only NATO would bomb Syria
there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of
new Libya? Where do you get those people?
Until recently, if someone suggested that Al-Qa`idah is
present in Syria, he/she would be accused of being a shabbiha
* for the Assad regime. But when the New York Times says it,
** it becomes true.
"... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
"... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family. ..."
"... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
"... The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. ..."
"... What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. ..."
"... "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting." ..."
"... "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. … ..."
"... "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges." ..."
"... In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.... ..."
Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed
"moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.
A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and
its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references
to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of
Bashar al-Assad.
There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered
off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels in Aleppo
and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates,
the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively
about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.
Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years
ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has
faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good
guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.
For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating
primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric
Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east
Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully
congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.
The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded
children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing
criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are
allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the
1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")
Rare Glimpse of Truth
Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through, even
in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as
the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive
in Aleppo. It acknowledges:
"The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were
continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves
as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. …
The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under
fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international
backers."
(You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of
"robust aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments
violate international law.)
What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the
recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt
of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. The Times
reported:
"The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements
of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant
group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist
faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the
United States and its allies."
The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute
in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel
factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against
Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line
fighting."
Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have been
vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …
"In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from
regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket
launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."
The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into
Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian
government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al
Qaeda....
"... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
"... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
"... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
"... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities
of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the
need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven
considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism
Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous
restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing
broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele
beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater
part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust
and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist
governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least
- to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.
Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies,
and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with
their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than
to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.
Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and
hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where
we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more
than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed
far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far
more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's
invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.
This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population,
working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to
the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable
organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred
of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for
more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and
reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.
Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce
two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists,
mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening
of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.
The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white
heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually
the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply
rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration.
If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their
purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase
their own support.
It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing
Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration
will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have
supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy
is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed
pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.
The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise,
in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of
a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All
this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was
identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.
On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially
in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail,
will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And
real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full
co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment,
funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.
As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia
among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact
that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing
great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration
chooses to take.
Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion,
are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator,
in the generally liberal Washington Post:
"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin
Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism.
These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States.
And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs
of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."
If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be
imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:
"The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either
with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy
stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends
don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11
September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve
of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas
have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national
interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the
victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States -
but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall
Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and
that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US
intelligence does.
Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for
Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy
may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which
again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal
in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender
not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:
"The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and
any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against
it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries
would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because
they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."
Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former
executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican
Party, especially under the present Administration.
No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other
voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states
which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete
the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.
Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president
of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented
the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy
Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this
war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate
the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign
ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace
to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf
States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent
stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into
an anti-American terrorist.
But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would
the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and
given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm
evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have
any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions,
for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of
Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the
Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government.
To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach
of relations and the ending of aid.
There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later
stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked
accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than
Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that
Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and
New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.
Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore
be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab
world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular,
a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes
against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently,
perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame:
the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.
This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab
world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger.
Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances
must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US
and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of
anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions
of hostility to the West.
All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing
a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly
impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the
US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism
usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This
is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict
the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.
An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate
a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic
shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations
forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State
Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness
to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor
contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.
The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and
security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared
tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather
certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition,
and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine
Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign
policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally
or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences
is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the
expense of overall policy.
Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually
to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence
on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals
in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely
different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people
totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation
by advisers, ministers and cliques.
In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats
- real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims.
With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine,
to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little
reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.
The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as
just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal
and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of
the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does,
it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater
dangers for the world.
The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold
War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate
the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty
states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s,
this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily
high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions
of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we
now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.
The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with
China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified.
Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed
by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough
in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a
free-thinker than many of his staff).
The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration
(however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially
ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension
of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity,
thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests,
was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September,
the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system,
and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the
ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus
at least.
How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general
conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority
of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware
that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle,
socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush
team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's
policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s -
was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like
Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in
Europe and East Asia.
The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and
Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer
to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt)
than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated
Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial
complex' came from Eisenhower.
Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of
the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy,
for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment
of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if
we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.
In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge
by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out
of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between
Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the
inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions
continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly,
the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US
in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just
in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered
regimes co-opted as local American clients.
The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what
we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated
a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the
end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.
There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of
them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity.
However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the
Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate
to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe
were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging
them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly
- as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford
to do fifty years ago.
This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans
- as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military
presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican
America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue
to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently.
'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship
could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental
issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.
· Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC.
"... Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009 promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. ..."
"... Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years. ..."
"... In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks. ..."
"... They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its allies." ..."
"... "Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive fallout." ..."
"... As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association observed recently in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike. ..."
"... Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge? This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not looking tough. ..."
"... Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative to the U.S. history of the last seventy years. ..."
"... The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking". ..."
"... Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats. ..."
The U.S. threat to launch a first-strike nuclear attack has little real strategic value – though
it poses a real risk to human survival – but President Obama fears political criticism if he changes
the policy, as Jonathan Marshall explains.
Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009
promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won
the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the
Wall Street Journal and
New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important
reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again
be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Ever since President Truman ordered two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, the United States
has reserved the right to initiate nuclear war against an overwhelming conventional, chemical or
biological attack on us or our allies. But peace advocates - and more than a few senior military
officers - have long warned that resorting to nuclear weapons would ignite a global holocaust, killing
hundreds of millions
of people .
President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman
Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)
In a
talk to the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association on June 6, Deputy National Security
Advisor Benjamin Rhodes promised that President Obama would continue to review ways to achieve his
grand vision of a nuclear-free world during his last months in office. Obama was
reportedly considering a "series of executive actions" to that end, including a landmark shift
to a "no first use" policy.
Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed
support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who
wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental
nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his
trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years.
But Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (who oversees the
nuclear stockpile), and Secretary of State John Kerry all warned during a National Security Council
meeting in July that declaring a policy of "no first use" would alarm America's allies, undercut
U.S. credibility, and send a message of weakness to the Kremlin at a time of tense relations with
Russia.
Yet until they took charge of giant bureaucracies whose funding depends on keeping the threat
of nuclear war alive, both Carter and Moniz were on record supporting "a new strategy for
reducing nuclear threats" and achieving security "at significantly lower levels of nuclear forces
and with less reliance on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."
In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected
the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks.
"Nuclear weapons are much less credible in deterring conventional, biological, or chemical weapon
attacks," they wrote. "A more effective way of deterring and defending against such non-nuclear attacks
– and giving the President a wider range of credible response options – would be to rely on a robust
array of conventional strike capabilities and strong declaratory policies."
They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons
must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its
allies."
Risk of Overreaction
Why does a no-first-use policy matter? In a New York Times
column last month, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
head of the United States Strategic Command, emphasized the folly of introducing nuclear weapons
into any conflict.
"Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very
survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North
Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive
fallout."
A policy of no first use, backed up by a reconfiguration of U.S. nuclear forces to reduce their
offensive capabilities, would lower the chance of a rival nuclear power rushing to launch early in
a crisis and unleashing World War III. Today some nuclear powers like Russia have their forces on
hair-trigger alert for fear of being wiped out by a U.S. surprise attack; as a result, the world
is just one
false alarm away from all-out nuclear war.
As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association
observed recently
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use
policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating
concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike.
"Such risks could grow in the future as Washington develops cyber offensive capabilities that
can confuse nuclear command and control systems, as well as new strike capabilities and strategic
ballistic missile interceptors that Russia and China believe may degrade their nuclear retaliatory
potential."
They also discounted the claim that U.S. allies such as Japan or Korea would rebel against such
a change of policy: "They are highly likely to accept such a decision, since no first use will in
no way weaken US military preparedness to confront non-nuclear threats to their security. . . Many
US allies, including NATO members Germany and the Netherlands, support the adoption of no-first-use
policies by all nuclear-armed states."
Warnings by nuclear hawks that a common-sense doctrine of no-first-use would undercut U.S. "credibility"
or project "weakness" are simply business-as-usual attempts by national security bureaucrats to inflate
threats and keep the war machine in high gear. If they succeed in blocking reform, America and the
rest of the world will remain at real risk of annihilation through accidental nuclear escalation.
The question now is whether President Obama will listen to the fear-mongers in his cabinet, or
remember
what he said in May at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial: "Among those nations like my own that hold
nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without
them."
I almost forgot about the "Obama gets a Nobel Prize" joke.
Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge?
This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the
world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not
looking tough.
exiled off mainstreet September 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Unfortunately, nuclear blackmail is central to the Yankee imperium maintaining its claim on
total power. It is Lord Acton's absolute power on steroids. The demonization of Putin on behalf
the harpy's campaign by many whom at one time themselves showed skepticism of the power structure
reveals the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of exponents of the Yankee regime.
F. G. Sanford September 8, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it
would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative
to the U.S. history of the last seventy years.
I don't even have to mention "conspiracy theories" in order to illustrate the point. Gulf of
Tonkin, Operation Phoenix, MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, subversion of the Paris
Peace Talks, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran Contra, the Church Committee findings, The House
Select Committee on Assassinations, Cointelpro, numerous regime changes and illegal wars – including
the falsified case for invasion of Iraq – all highlight the complete lawlessness of the U.S.A.
According to international law, The Constitution, numerous treaties and United States public
law, there should be no first use of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. Their "first use" constitutes war of
aggression, "The Supreme International Crime" according to Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, Robert
H. Jackson. What has been missing in the United States for the last seventy years is simply SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES. All seven of the (known) countries in which we are currently conducting hostile military
operations constitute examples of illegal wars based on our own Constitution and International
Law. Retaliation against the United States for conducting these wars, should some country be willing
or able, WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Keep in mind, we haven't "won" a war since WWII unless you count
Grenada. Even then, you'd have to ignore the fact that the Russians practically, if not politically,
won WWII.
I realize the good intentions of the author, and I respect his credentials, but this analysis
represents the typical tendency in the U.S. to devolve discourse into specks of sand while drowning
in quicksand. It contributes to official propaganda without realization or intent. SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES is the topic no journalist seems willing to tackle. Let me give an example. When the
2000 Florida vote recount was underway, Jeb Bush got on the phone to the five biggest law firms
in the state and told them not to represent Al Gore. THAT IS A FELONY. But, rather than discuss
SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES, American journalists were content to stand by and watch an unindicted
felon run for the highest office in the land. After finding out that his brother lied to us, they
abrogated their duty and stood by while he was reelected…by another statistically impossible election
result.
Americans may be oblivious to all this, but the rest of the world certainly isn't. They don't
believe a damn thing we say. That will only worsen with the election of a bona fide war monger
in November. NOBODY overseas believes ANY of our "official" narratives. We've stirred up trouble
in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Now, we're working on the Asian Pacific. Europe is overrun
by a refugee crisis we created. Does any rational person not see the risk posed by these unfettered
abuses? Since they cannot match us conventionally, and they see no end to the onslaught of disastrous
U.S. foreign intervention, at least two countries are likely to view a nuclear "first strike"
as their only hope to salvage some semblance of national sovereignty. If anyone has read this
far, thanks for listening. I'm at the point of giving up on further commentary; it all looks pretty
hopeless at this point.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Excellent points.
Joe Tedesky September 9, 2016 at 12:11 am
F.G. We all get fed up and frustrated with our country's sad performances it displays on our world's
stage, but whatever you do don't quit posting commentaries. This evening I was going over archived
articles on this site from the past, and you were one of the commenters going back to around 2011
or maybe it was 2012, but no matter you were there. What I do like about this site, is it is an
oasis in a desert when it comes to the commenters, and you are one of them I totally enjoy. Oh,
and the articles are priceless.
Now, what gets me going of late, isn't just how treaties mean nothing to our American government,
but how things come and go,,and then disappear down a black news hold. For instance, back in 2014
the torture files were brought up in our news media. The Panetta Review, and all that kind of
garbage was finally being exposed. That was until the whole thing vanished like it never existed.
Kind of like going to war to find WMD's, and then when we find there are none, well we just up
and go on about our way, as if nothing ever happened.
The U.S. doesn't respect treaties, and there is never anyone to hold to accountability. We
are the nation who creates the reality. As you have heard, we are the nation who is indispensable
and exceptional. Your either with us, or against us. Another nations sovereignty doesn't mean
a thing when it comes to waging war, if we are right well then we are right. There are no questions
to be answered. What law is there, what legal system can enforce any law national or international,
when it comes to what America does?
To all the commenters on this site, I can't say how much it means to me, to not only comment
here, but more importantly what a pleasure it is to read all your comments and take in the knowledge
I get by reading what you all have to say. Even the comments I don't agree with often leave food
for thought…so yes I'm thanking everyone.
We need more not less of the unblinkered and sober assessments like this one you have educated
and enlightened us with here.
Now is not a good time to allow Dr. Feelgood to run amok especially with faux concern governing
the passing contests and ego driven games that endanger not only people, but every living creature
on the planet, except perhaps cock roaches… the only ones who will benefit from an unfettered
nuclear policy of when in doubt go nuclear……
Abe September 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm
The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said
to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed
as a "humanitarian undertaking".
Thank you….the piece about Jeb Bush near the end was, something that I didn't know. The paragraph
about the "Specifications of charges" was another aspect of which I've never seen mentioned. I
really enjoy well written posts where I can keep filling in bits of the big picture ,as I call
it.
M. September 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Nuclear war preparedness and the use of nuclear weapons have already affected so many and will
continue to do so. Nuclear waste disposal alone is a huge problem. Since a nuclear war, limited
or otherwise, will affect the entire world one way or another, it would seem that all nations
should be brought together to have S.A.L.T.- like talks, not just the current nuclear powers,
but the presumed and potential nuclear powers, as well as those nations who will in all likelihood
never have them. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. It could lead to great reductions
in other kinds of weapons, and possibly, to the most important discussion of all – how to have
and maintain real peace in the world. It isn't too late for President Obama to remember what he
said in Hiroshima, as Mr. Marshall stated, and not too late for him to be a true leader and to
act on those words.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm
Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired
paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats.
Obama's recent remarks referring to the insane bombing of Laos that was an example of Nixon's
madness brought reminders of this lunacy. "Over 270 million cluster bombs were dropped on Laos
during the Vietnam War (210 million more bombs than were dropped on Iraq in 1991, 1998 and 2006
combined); up to 80 million did not detonate." –
http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/
– That was probably more than a dozen cluster bombs for each Laotian – man, woman and child.
In addition to suggesting this was insanity on the part of the Nixon-Kissinger administration
it probably also indicates gross incompetence or a lack of moral courage on the part of the leadership
in the Air Force.
"... Hello …According to Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual routes via Ukraine. ..."
Hello …According to
Reuters , the European Union on Friday lifted limits on Gazprom's use of a link from its offshore
Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, allowing Russia to pump more gas to Europe and bypass its usual
routes via Ukraine.
"... Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment, committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his presidency. ..."
"... Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that would do so without an order. ..."
"... In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing. Most of these events are unknown to the public. ..."
"... Obama changed the US nuclear weapon policy by adopting "first strike doctrine". ..."
"... That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed the strategic balance in the USA favor. ..."
Almost goofily, behind Official Washington's latest
warmongering "group think," the U.S. has plunged into a New
Cold War against Russia with no debate about the enormous
costs and the extraordinary risks of nuclear annihilation.
By Gray Brechin
When Lewis Mumford heard that a primitive atomic bomb had
obliterated Hiroshima, the eminent urban and technology
historian experienced "almost physical nausea." He instantly
understood that humanity now had the means to exterminate
itself.
On March 2, 1946, seven months later, he published an
essay titled "Gentlemen: You Are Mad!" Not only did madmen,
Mumford insist, "govern our affairs in the name of order and
security," but he called his fellow Americans equally mad for
viewing "the madness of our leaders as if it expressed a
traditional wisdom and common sense" even as those leaders
readied the means for "the casual suicide of the human race."
In the 70 years since the Saturday Review of Literature
published Mumford's warning, that madness has grown to be
normative so that those who question the cost, safety and
promised security of the nuclear stockpile are regarded as
the Trojans did Cassandra - if they are noticed at all.
"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the
president gives the order it must be followed," insisted
Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate as a means
of affirming her own - rather than her opponent's -
qualifications to give that order. "There's about four
minutes between the order being given and the people
responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."
Four minutes to launch is a minute more than the three to
midnight at which the Doomsday Clock now stands. Clinton no
doubt calculated that voters would be more comfortable with
her own steady finger on the nuclear trigger. I can think of
no better proof of Mumford's contention than the fact that
those voters would give any individual the power to abruptly
end life on Earth unless it is that her statement went
unremarked by those keeping score.
The Nobel Mistake
Less than nine months into Barack Obama's presidency,
Norway's Nobel Institute bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize on
him largely on the strength of his pledge during his first
major foreign policy speech in Prague to rid the world of
nuclear weapons. In a 2015 memoir, former secretary of the
Institute Geir Lundestad expressed remorse for doing so,
saying "We thought that it would strengthen Obama and it
didn't have that effect."
Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the
political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment,
committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the
arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his
presidency.
As Obama prepared to leave office, his Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter rejected pleas for reducing the stockpile and
announced that the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion
over five years to "correct decades of underinvestment in
nuclear deterrence … dating back to the Cold War." The last
Cold War, that is.
Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more
unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary
Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That
was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on
hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that
would do so without an order.
In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear
Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry
detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has
dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the
likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing.
Most of these events are unknown to the public.
Former head of the U.S. Strategic Command General James
Cartwright bolstered Perry's claim when he told a San
Francisco audience that "It makes no sense to keep our
nuclear weapons online 24 hours a day" since "You've either
been hacked and are not admitting it, or you're being hacked
and don't know it." One of those hackers, he said, could get
lucky.
A Non-existent Debate
When Hillary Clinton was asked at a town hall event in
Concord, New Hampshire, if she would reduce expenditures for
nuclear arms and rein in the corporations that sell the
government those weapons, she replied "I think we are overdue
for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need
and how we are willing to pay for it."
Such a debate has never been held and - given the peril,
complexity and cost of nuclear technology - it is never
likely to happen unless a president of exceptional courage
and independence demands it. The profits of weapons
production are simply too great and few of the prospective
victims understandably want to dwell on the unthinkable when
so much more diverting entertainment is available on their
Smartphones.
Nuclear weapons by their nature are inimical to
transparency and thus to the public discussion, control and
democracy they ostensibly protect. Nor does Doomsday make for
winning dinner banter.
The Brookings Institute in 1998 published a study of the
cumulative costs of nuclear weapons entitled Atomic Audit. It
put the bill to date at $5.5 trillion, virtually none of
which was known by the public or even to members of Congress
or the President. The cost simply grew and continues to grow
in the dark, precluding spending on so much else that might
otherwise return in public works and services to those who
unwittingly pay for the weapons while also mitigating the
causes of war abroad....
Dr. Gray Brechin is the Project Scholar of the Living New
Deal University at the UC Berkeley Department of Geography.
That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile
systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with
offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed
the strategic balance in the USA favor.
I wonder how Russia and China would react on this.
Currently they still stick to "no first use" principle.
Russia and China would react on this. Currently they still
stick to "no first use" principle.
"
A Fate Worse Than Death
During the inquisition Catholic Priests logically assumed
that living within a community of Jews would be a fate worse
than death thus chose death instead of integration. Sure!
They didn't need to kill all the Jews. They only needed to
kill the ones that didn't convert to Christianity during
their stint with torture.
During the final weeks of Second World War Victory, 33rd
President decided that the American Voters would consider
life with Japanese a fate worse than death thus resolved to
kill off bunch of them even though the execution had nothing
to do with final victory. Hell!
A simple blockade of the industrial island nation would
have starved Japanese of raw materials enough to send the
Japanese straight back to the stone ages thus render them
harmless in less than 2 years. Hell!
The blockade was already in place.
During the Cold War our leaders decided that American
Voters would find it a fate worse than death to be conquered
by communists, a fate worse than death to live without
capitalism. Decided, then fabricated thousands of nuclear
devices, enough devices to provide the kind of strontium
isotope fall out that would allow cockroaches to survive but
render all of humanity forever extinct .
Today, by contrast, we see that Russian Communism has
imploded, Chinese Communism has morphed into Bankster/Capitalism,
and Vietnamese Communism is not trying to subjugate the
World.
In other words, the fear of being conquered does not
logically indicate the need for WoMD, weapons of mass
destruction that could annihilate the entire human race.
Yet the Democrats continue to follow in the foot steps of
33rd President, continue to walk in his footprints. Hell!
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
"... It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg. ..."
"... I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war? ..."
So if HRC triples that, we will graduate roughly 150 soldiers at the price of 10 million
each, if I'm doing my figures correctly. Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate
students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.
If you want to know more about Division 30, as this training program's fighting unit is
called, read the wiki page
, which has some great gems like:
In September 2015, a second group of Division 30 rebels with 12 Toyota pick-up trucks,
medium machine guns and ammunition crossed the Syrian-Turkish border and ended up giving
up much of their weaponry and ammunition to the Al-Nusra Front in order to secure passage
farther into Syria.[13][14]
By the end of September 2015, General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command, said
the remaining members of Division 30 were limited in number, "We're talking four or five".
Division 30's current whereabouts are unknown after they allegedly stopped receiving funding
and supplies from the U.S.[3]
I can't even keep track of my coworkers, I have no idea how they can possibly say, "Oh yeah,
there's four or five of them left".
Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses,
they might get the same results for cheaper.
I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled
drone assasinations, surely a cost-effective distance learning program isn't too much to ask.
Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses,
they might get the same results for cheaper
I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled
drone assassinations. Surely a distance-learning, interactive training curriculum for our designated
freedom fighters isn't too much to ask. Add in a posttest and certification levels and you've
got a Common Core for Democracy.
As I recall from reading Seymour Hersh on this….the program was set up as a replacement
for the CIA's program to supply rebels, but the Pentagon lost the fight, partially on this.
Both programs are still running.
You missed the bit where one of our lovely "moderate" groups released video of beheading
sick children in hospital beds, and that as a result we were planning to "review" our support
of them. I'm sure that "review" is going well, in fact I think they should put McCain in charge
of it, after all he knows these "moderates" personally and was filmed sharing lots of yuks
and high-fives with them.
It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And
that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs
declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg.
I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary
Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially
recruit and train people for a civil war?
If this war is one that the people have been driven
to engage in, wouldn't the real problem be picking the best of the multitudes of volunteers
who are dedicated to freeing their country? I seem to remember there being a pretty good number
of people behind the US Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. Sure
there was coercion as well, but that was internal not external. Perhaps their problems is not
the execution of the 'training', but the fact that they are trying to instigate an unwanted
civil war.
Just a thought, but I do think the Press might want to explore that possible aspect. Because
as a betting woman, I'd say the odds are that a whole lot of Americans who have thought about
this have come to the same conclusion I have. This isn't about what SYRIANS want.
"... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
"... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
"... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
"... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember:
worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous
than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre
historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.
It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach
to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even
many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.
If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands
of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't
give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.
she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects
her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.
Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation:
We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing
this and our endless criminal wars.
"Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy
Editor's Roundtable].
"…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason
for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."
This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty
and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch.
Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.
Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing
WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content"
shows on NPR).
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S.
administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose,
and to discuss any problem.
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear
Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came
from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood
swings' and her health problems....
She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear
Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal
Prison.
This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a
woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist
its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.
Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter...
Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.
They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary
was 'moody'.
The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!
Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player
in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked
them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter
them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence
she is unqualified to lead the USA.
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve
US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some
of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July
25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot
Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance
team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept
in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to
retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down
orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then,
Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking
points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks
after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone
knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy
without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone
KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only
the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft
was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're
all accurate and true,"
They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the
WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying,
"Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe
Regular Guy •
12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents
are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there
is some reason to question the facts.
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put
national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best
outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the
word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems
in her head.
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to
retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight
or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc
Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own
military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own
Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had
to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to
a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic
mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die"
mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because
Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial
aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he
OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two
weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even
though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and
abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the
Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe
Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no
military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
"... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
"... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
"... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
"... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only
one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and
the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the
warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for
the American people to stop them.
Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality
by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests,
including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life
concerns of the American people.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings
where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking
devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to
reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged
a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and
foremost a profitable racket.
How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy
elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened
Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military
contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles
and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.
According to the
front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends
the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal"
hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya
along with allied powers working through NATO.
The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own
analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and
easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress
and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made
from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States
and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat
pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq
and Libya experience.
The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall
of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's
murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he
died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy
establishment, which is spoiling for more war.
The self-identified liberal
Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's
current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished."
CAP, according to
a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing,
who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.
As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister
jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The
Brookings Institute,
in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom,
where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think
tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.
And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department
of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously
told Colin
Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we
can't use it," predictably
says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former
Bush administration top adviser is also
calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.
The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering,
propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.
The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'ętre for stone-cold
warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world
domination.
It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast
a fictional show that contemplated
WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic
Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).
The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder
that by the summer of 2016
a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear
strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.
As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating
the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly
more dangerous place.
The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with
a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry.
I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts,
at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.
Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by
a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of
the report's authors.
It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors
have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of
the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.
It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians
alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America,
to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its
media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as
inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the
White House, must face visible opposition.
Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted
by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because
he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would
have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has
been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement
through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response
to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as
he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well
until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention'
has been hugely successful in that effort.
One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats
using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to
run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the
Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention
rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.
"... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
"... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
"... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
The
Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas
through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed
by the West, which is
seeking
to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop
it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister
Nikola Gruevski.
The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but
Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the
alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in
taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime
change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue
for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.
After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National
Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo
and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and
14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which
reportedly received
vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the
attacks.
Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM)
– formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations
over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has
lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE
(Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity)
enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers:
SDSM leader Zoran Zaev
declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will
stay until Gruevski quits."
Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the
Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in
Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks
on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."
During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as
a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force,
but actually
an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster
state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by
the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian
government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time,
here
and here.
Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster
of Macedonia, handing them a
$25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the
Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized
Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change
the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter
of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo
war – is now getting his revenge.
Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political
turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the
latter playing a key role in releasing
recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible
scenario, given what happened
in neighboring Ukraine.
Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into
complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into
the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already
defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists
are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe
the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists
who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this
space, is still being held, his
"trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making
a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted
into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned.
Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.
Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to
outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of
this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the
side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretzreports, a group of 40 historians
from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:
"Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered
tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history
of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political
groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the
outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and,
in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."
Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified
last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the
truth.
"... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
"... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
"... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February
2014, experts point out.
It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's
European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was
the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while
Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many
of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman
and ex-parliamentarian.
Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between
1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost
$10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.
It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million
to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making
business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter
of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.
Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political
matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return.
In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative
in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably,
several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global
financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.
Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced
to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends"
to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail
term.
Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration.
In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board
including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice,
Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent
figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.
No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing
the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting
then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of
Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.
Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet
government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment
banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the
Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have
previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.
So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by
a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil.
In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world
of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its
devastating consequences.
[IMO, Noah muddles the message, but it is a important
topic that gets muddled by everyone else too. Economists with
a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank
mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the
auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century.
Efficiency itself is an amorphous term. Mergers can be an
efficient use of capital since they deliver lower competition
and higher profits. JP Morgan did not want to be in a
industry that he could not dominate. Efficiency is different
for a fish than a capital owner. Mergers are good for
regulatory capture and ineffishient for fish. Mergers are
inefficient for workers that want higher wages or the
unemployed that want jobs. Market power and regulatory
capture can be efficient vehicles for taking advantage of
trade agreements to offshore production and increase returns
to capital all while lowering both prices and quality as well
as reducing domestic wages. Efficiency is in the eyeballs of
the beholder especially if they make good soup.]
Reply
Tuesday,
reason
-> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
,
October 25, 2016 at 06:58 AM
But Keynes was saying something quite different - he wasn't
actually talking about policy but about economics (the task
of economists). He was saying that understanding short term
fluctuations was as important as predicting the long term.
Still relevant in this age of irrelevant general equilibrium
models.
I always looked at Keynes as a fellow traveler, one who wrote
obtusely at times for the express purpose of couching his
meaning in sweetened platitudes that at a second glance were
drenched in cynicism and sarcasm, at least when it came to
his opinions of economists and politicians and the capital
owning class that they both served.
OK, "obtusely" was a poor choice of words, at least with
regards to Keynes. Keynes realized WWI was a big mistake, the
Treaty at Versailles was an abomination with regards to
German restitution, and he was accused of anti-Semitism just
for being honest about Jewish elites in the Weimar Republic.
It was not that Keynes was insensitive, unpatriotic, or
anti-Semitic, but that Keynes was just correct on all counts.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
, -1
This is a good example of economists working in lock step
with investors: "Economists with a financial bent had no
problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the
seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the
first half of the 2oth century."
I think it has been
questioned for decades whether increased efficiency in
banking actually materialized in the wake of industry
consolidation. Local market oligopolies may well have
generated higher profits and the appearance of more
efficiency. And concentration certainly facilitated collusion
as we have seen in many markets, including LIBOR.
What concentration indisputably caused was a dramatic
increase in the political power of the Wall Street banking
cartel, which owns not only the Federal Reserve but also a
lot of powerful politicians...a subject on which 'liberal'
economists are generally agnostic, since politics is outside
their silo.
The article ignored the effect of mergers on supplier
relationships, often one of near monopsony (oligopsony?). DOJ
seems to be focused on unit pricing to consumers(though
perhaps not with cable) to the point that most managements
understand that they have free rein to squeeze suppliers. And
so they merge to do so.
It may be that more contribution to increasing margins is
from purchase prices than selling prices.
"... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
"... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
"... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China
Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East
are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national
security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host
a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's
foreign policy?
Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing
issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues
that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble."
First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every
nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism
is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."
Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United
States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe
that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal
democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."
The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen
years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary
in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer,
the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that
promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle
barrel is almost impossible."
So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert
U.S. military might into political ends?
Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be
American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't
control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably
difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same
foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject
failure."
Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's
Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are
and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris
is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."
Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment
to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result
of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the
United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After
World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered
that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."
Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate
for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other
videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional
questions.
says:
September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am
Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia
should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying
the West any role in it.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 11:06 am
One small point that you may well not be aware of: the debris from the downed flight MH-17
was not on Russian sovereign territory and the Russian state had no jurisdiction whatsoever
over what should be done with it.
Reply
Moscow
Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 11:44 am
Pro-Russian some of the anti-government Donbas militia may well be, but the Donbas is
not the Crimea and Russia did not and has never wished to annex it; for one thing, the
majority of the citizens of the Donetsk province are probably neither "pro-Russian" or
wish to that the province become part of the Russian federation.
Reply
Jen
says:
September 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Karl, what you suggest is called messing up the crime scene and potentially
destroying evidence that could actually favour the rebels. The whole area should
have been cordoned off and guarded by armed forces from an impartial third party
country (or a UN peacekeeping force) which did not have any passengers on MH17
for as long as needed for a full criminal investigation and search for evidence
to be done.
Reply
marknesop
says:
September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had
already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in
secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of
credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm
Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the
BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline
news.
The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror
football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a
round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK),
the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on
Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the
downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!"
screamed out from the British gutter press.
And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to
the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George,
whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's
mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin.
Reply
More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though
they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald
keeps falling and cannot get up.
ilsm -> EMichael...
Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.
Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned
using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.
Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.
likbez -> ilsm...
Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler,
"War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was
expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that
could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.
The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the
American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist,
we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people,
the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
====
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the
German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance.
It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations,
but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost.
Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation
post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the
damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
===
Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates
on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.
There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the
families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political
future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you
are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening
up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty
. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.
"... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
"... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
"... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
"... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
"... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
"... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
"... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
"... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
"... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
"... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
"... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
"... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case
as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this
point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed.
It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder
without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment
in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.
It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the
wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed
it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against
war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary
attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first
weeks.
Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror
of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted
ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day
and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace.
The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.
Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping
western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally
reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for
a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist
aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial
power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars
brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.
The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing
fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert
of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911,
Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts
had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations
of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.
If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't
that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and
Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course,
no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel
the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control
and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against
war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations
of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate
as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede
to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement
of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey,
Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism,
or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?
The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by
multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was
the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?
"... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
"... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
"... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
"... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
"... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
"... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
"... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
"... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
"... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
"... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
"... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
"... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case
as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this
point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed.
It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder
without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment
in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.
It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the
wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed
it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against
war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary
attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first
weeks.
Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror
of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted
ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day
and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace.
The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.
Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping
western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally
reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for
a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist
aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial
power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars
brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.
The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing
fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert
of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911,
Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts
had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations
of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.
If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't
that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and
Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course,
no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel
the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control
and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against
war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations
of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate
as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede
to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement
of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey,
Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism,
or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?
The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by
multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was
the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?
More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though
they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald
keeps falling and cannot get up.
ilsm -> EMichael...
Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.
Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned
using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.
Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.
likbez -> ilsm...
Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler,
"War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was
expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that
could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.
The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the
American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist,
we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people,
the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
====
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the
German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance.
It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations,
but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost.
Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation
post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the
damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
===
Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates
on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.
There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the
families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political
future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you
are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening
up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty
. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.
John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were
basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared
on YouTube a day before the crash?)
"Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence
of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret
service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs
and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly
before; much of it already discredited as fakes."
The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the
ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national
greatness.
Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed
that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that
map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.
Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the
back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.
It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that
the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry
said the US had but no-one has heard of since.
On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite
imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi
– or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.
Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried,
and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and
say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know.
Reply
Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins,
his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their
previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious
Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories
may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk
radar would surely have seen that.
But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine,
since it can be used to prove something?
Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the
airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting
it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly,
Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.
Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:
16:05
Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between
dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry
16:02
Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces
15:52
Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash
15:48
Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash
15:46
Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense
Ministry
15:39
Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from
Snizhne side
15:28
INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF
LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
15:25
RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE
MINISTRY
15:24
KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE
FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
15:24
UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING
777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
Recently unearthed
raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July
2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction
from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar
doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't
working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course,
if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see.
Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.
Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the
story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity,
the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.
Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final
report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can.
But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such
evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence
– or any evidence at all – from Kiev.
Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower,
though.
Reply
...let's roll the counters back to September 18, 2013 – almost exactly three years ago. Just before,
of course, the glorious Maidan which freed Ukrainians from the oppressive yoke of Russia. At that
moment in history, western analysts were trembling with eagerness to vilify Yanukovych, but were
still hopeful that he would stick his head out of his shell long enough to sign the Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union. Washington maintains a kind of ongoing paternal
affection for revolution – which is always less painful and noisy when it's a continent or two away
– but is practical enough to accept an easy victory if that's the way it plays out.
It didn't play out like that, of course, and an American-backed coup ensued in which Yanukovych
offered to give the revolutionary political figures everything they had asked for – early elections,
a provisional coalition government with the egghead among the revolutionaries as Prime Minister,
the works. They were a little taken aback at how easy it was, and then decided it wasn't enough –
Yanukovych must be holding back something if he gave in that easily, and therefore he must be tricking
them, since the script called for the dictator-president to cower in fear and to be flung into the
street in disgrace. So they went ahead with the traditional revolution, gaining nothing at all thereby
except the ushering-in of a self-appointed revolutionary junta, and the empowerment of fervent fascist
nationalists who had previously had to keep their admiration for the Nazis on the down-low.
It is worth mentioning here – because whenever it is brought up, the response ranges from amnesia
to outright denial it ever happened – that the pre-revolutionary government went into it with its
eyes wide open and a good working awareness of the probable consequences. Yanukovych and Azarov,
at least, were briefed that cutting off trade with Russia, which Brussels and Washington insisted
upon, would likely be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced
that Ukraine was not blowing off the deal entirely; it was
just suspending it
until the state could be sure that increased trade with Europe would compensate for the loss
of the Russian market. Before that, Yanukovych and Azarov
tried energetically to broker a triumvirate coalition of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, to sort
out the trade issues that Brussels insisted made such an arrangement impossible. Not to put too fine
a point on it, Russia and Ukraine proposed a tripartite forum which would see Ukraine as a bridge
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. Brussels emphatically rejected it, confident
that it could pry Ukraine away from Russia, because the initiative was always strategic rather
than economic .
The government of the day in Ukraine saw fairly clearly what was likely going to happen – and
so did we, didn't we? Yes, we did,
as detailed here . We pointed out that nearly half those Ukrainians who answered a survey that
they wanted Ukraine to join the EU did so because it would strengthen and grow the Ukrainian economy,
but that it was difficult to see how that would come about considering 60% of Ukraine's trade was
with the former Soviet market, and highlighted the unlikelihood that Europe was going to pick up
60%-plus of Ukraine's trade, resulting in prosperity. We pointed out that only half as many people
who responded to the survey that Ukraine's relations with Russia were characterized as 'friendly'
said the same of relations with the EU. So, you could kind of see how (a) a failure to see rapid
economic benefits as a result of signing the agreement, coupled with (b) the opposite effect, a precipitate
drop in trade, plus (c) severing of relations with a country nearly a quarter of Ukrainians considered
a friend, in exchange for a necrophiliac relationship with a trade union few cared much for except
for the usual percentage of lapdog dissidents, was very likely to result in widespread dissatisfaction
and an explosive situation. Did it? It sure did.
Anyway, as much fun as tooting our own horn is, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about.
I want to review, in exquisite detail, the panorama of failure that is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's
(RFE/RL) feelgood
graphic presentation for the rubes and dimwits on how association with the EU was going to be
better than sex in warm chocolate for Ukraine. And that forecast has turned out to be about as accurate
as a prediction that Justin Bieber would be nominated UN Secretary-General by popular acclaim.
But let's not leave it at that. Because you know that if those who forecast disaster for Ukraine
– based on, I think, the ability to read and to add – had somehow been wrong, and Ukraine had sprinted
into double-digit economic growth and taken over the role of driving engine of the European economy,
we would never have been allowed to forget it. Turnabout, then, being fair play…
1. The cream-skimming oligarchy, accustomed to riding to wealth on the backs of its panting workforce,
will be out – swept away by a new era of small-business confidence. Did that happen? Hardly. The
President Ukraine eventually elected was fingered for
starting up a new offshore shell corporation even as his troops were being driven into a disastrous
encirclement at Ilovaisk. The
same old oligarchs continue to control more than 70% of Ukraine's GDP. The Anti-Corruption Committee
appointed by Poroshenko, unsurprisingly,
declined to investigate him for corruption . Now more than two years into his presidency, Poroshenko
still has not sold his assets as he promised to do if elected, and his businesses continue to fatten
his personal bottom line in
direct
contravention of Ukrainian law and the Constitution. Never a peep of protest about that, though,
from Poroshenko's
International
Advisory Council , which includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Australian
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former Swedish Prime
Minister Carl Bildt, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and make-believe-economist wooden-head
Anders Aslund. This council continues to advise the President of what remains
the most corrupt country in Europe .
2. The boss at the company where you work will have to learn different ways to lead, because screaming
and ranting are not acceptable in Europe. In many European countries, the boss is just a senior worker
who you can call by his first name. This sort of rolls into the first point, but it seems sort of
self-evident that if Ukrainian companies do not do more business with Europe and replace their lost
Russian markets, and the same oligarchs still own the same companies, little will change about employee-employer
dynamics.
According to Eurostat , Ukraine's trade with the EU was down sharply in 2015 in both imports
and exports. A decrease in imports is not particularly surprising – Ukraine is
living
on handouts from the international community while it continues to pour funding into its armed
forces so that it can pursue the game of civil war, and hasn't any money. Not to mention thousands
of Ukrainian working stiffs are employed by Roshen, owned by the President, so I wouldn't be trying
out, "Morning, Petro – how's it hanging?" on my tongue any time soon if I were you. The new Prime
Minister, Vladimir Groysman, is unlikely to be 'Vova' to very many workers, either. He's quite wealthy
in his own right, at least part of that wealth
shunted from EU development funds to his father's cement and asphalt company. However, as an
unnamed Ukrainian politician is said to have quipped to a Ukrainskaya Pravda reporter when
Groysman received his new appointment, "Do you know what the difference is between Groysman and Yatsenyuk?
When Volodymir [Groysman] will start stealing, he will steal off the profit. Yatsenyuk was doing
it off the loss." It's good to see Ukrainians haven't lost their sense of humour.
3. As the standard of living improves in Ukraine, people will begin to trust each other. In Yanukovych's
Ukraine, people tended to trust only their own small circle, but in the New Ukraine, the doormat
will be changed from "Beat It, Shyster!" to "Come On In, Friend!" I'll let Thomas C. Theiner take
over on the subject of trust in Ukraine, post-Maidan. A committed Atlanticist neoconservative and
former cheerleader for Ukraine, Theiner lived in Kiev for 5 years, and has the advantage of personal
knowledge. In his assessment, if you are the type who likes to throw away money,
go to Vegas instead of Kiev – that way, at least there's a chance you'll see a return. Thomas?
"Even today, it's impossible for a foreign businessman to start a company in Ukraine without
being harassed for bribes. If you pay, they just demand more; if you don't pay, you won't succeed
at all. The only way out is to hire a local to help you navigate the bureaucracy and grease the correct
wheels. But whomever you hire will charge a 400-500 percent premium. Hiring a foreign law company
with offices in Kyiv, which charges Western prices, is the only alternative."
Expectations of a dramatic change were not realized, and the changing of the guard only brought
in different crooks. No significant progress has been made on corruption. If your company is successful
without the correct palms being greased, an expedient will be found for getting you out of town for
a few days. When you come back, the company will be under new ownership, and like George Thorogood
in "Move it on Over" ,
your key won't fit no more. Move over, little dog, a big ol' dog's movin' in. All puffickly legal,
as well, by Ukrainian courts.
4. Without gross, horrible, corrupt Yanukovych in charge, trust in the police will rise and pretty
soon they will be rescuing kitties from trees instead of taking bribes and roughing people up. Just
last month, at least three police officers in western Ukraine
beat Oleksandr Tsukerman and shot him dead in front of his relatives, including his mother. Around
200 local residents gathered in front of the police station, and uniformed officers had to keep them
back when the detained police officers who are accused of the crime were brought out. In case you
were thinking the dead man was a violent criminal who somehow invited his own death, the Ukrainian
Police Chief ordered the entire station disbanded. A group of people in the same region were
beating up passers-by right in front of the police , and officers involved in a wrongful death
and four officers who raped a woman and fractured her skull were not dismissed from their jobs. Call
me a pessimist, but that doesn't sound encouraging to me.
5. The difference in social status between the very wealthy and the middle class will gradually
disappear, and rich people will no longer be VIP's. It's pretty easy to show this one up for the
epic piece of optimistic stupidity it was. The President of Ukraine is also an active businessman
and multimillionaire, while per-capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, for the ordinary folk,
has collapsed
and the unemployment rate is
leaping upward
in great jagged peaks. Yet according to the State Statistics of Ukraine, wage growth has been
steady and touched a record
high in July 2016. A month later, a Ukrainian miner on live TV
set himself afire at a press conference to protest wage arrears. This desperate protest is alleged
to have taken place after industrial action and hunger strikes failed to move the government. How
can these two realities co-exist? I guess it's easy for wages to be at a record high if you don't…you
know…pay them.
6. Women's rights; in the European Parliament, a third of the members are women. In the Verkhovna
Rada under jerky Yanukovych, only 10% were women. Well, folks, the glorious Maidan was not for nothing.
The current Rada is
12.02% women – only 87.98% are men. The gain is mostly illusory, as only 416 seats of the Rada's
statutory 450 are occupied due to the
banning of certain political parties . But a third of 416 would be 138 women rather than the
current 50, so women's rights groups should not relax just yet, as some work obviously remains to
be done.
7. In Yanukovych's Russia-friendly Ukraine, intolerance was the rule and blacks and homosexuals
mostly stayed hidden. Most Ukrainians would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and even
fewer for a black one. How things have changed! Now Nazi symbology in public is
commonplace in Ukraine , whilst the government ostentatiously banned Communist symbology and
recognized Nazi-era collaborators as Freedom Fighters. As best I recall, the Nazis were not known
for their tolerance. How many Ukrainians in the new Europe-ready Ukraine would vote for a black or
a gay presidential candidate? A Gay Pride march in Kiev scheduled for 2014
was canceled when authorities refused to police the event and said they could not guarantee the
participants' safety from homophobic violence. At
another attempt in 2015 , international supporters from Canada had to cross three lines of police
to get to the meeting point, and were given a list of things to not do: Don't wear bright colours.
Don't kiss or hold hands. Don't speak to the police unless spoken to. The bus company which was approached
by Kiev Pride to take the marchers to and from the march allegedly refused, saying, "We'll take the
diplomats, we'll take the journalists, but we're not taking any faggots." Clearly, tolerance not
only has not improved, but is in full retreat and is not a priority for the new government.
8. Life expectancy. In
2010 , the year Yanukovych was elected president, it was 70.2 years. In
2016 ,
it's 69.6. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an improvement.
9. Health. Sports clubs encourage a healthier lifestyle. Most of Ukraine's sports clubs and facilities
were inherited from the Soviet Union. A search for "Poroshenko opens new sports club" yielded nothing
much except the news – I guess I shouldn't be surprised – that
he owns one : (search for "Poroshenko's
allies show up on website listing tax-haven firms") Fifth Element, at 29A Electrykiv St. in Kiev.
That's also the registered address of Intraco Management, owned by deputy head of Roshen Sergey Zaitsev.
Intraco Management showed up in Mossack-Fonseca's records, which came to be better known as the Panama
Papers. Meanwhile, health care in Ukraine
remains deplorable
and there has been no noticeable improvement.
In fact, although you can find the occasional bright spot if your business is finding bright spots
and spinning them into a tapestry of success, Ukraine is a nation in free-fall. The currency is
trading at 26.33 UAH to
the US greenback , slowly edging up to that truly scary record spike of 33.5 to the dollar in
February of last year. Pre-Maidan, the rate was about 7 hryvnia to the dollar. When Poroshenko assumed
his present office, it was 12 to the dollar. The president's approval rating has
corkscrewed down to around 10% . Believe it or not – and I frankly find it incomprehensible there
can be an electorate anywhere, whose fingers must be nothing but scar tissue now from being burnt
so many times, that so adamantly will not change its ways – the
current leader in the polls is… Yulia Tymoshenko. Yes, indeed; if anything can save the floundering
country, it's another stinking-rich oligarch. Yulia Tymoshenko, multi-millionaire.
Ukrainian family
living wage , 9,950 UAH per month, about $383.00 USD. Per month. And the reduced price for gas
for households was
canceled in May , as an anti-corruption measure.
By the benchmarks set in the happy-time graphic, Ukraine is failing catastrophically in every
metric, gasping for breath like a fish on the kitchen floor with someone standing on it. There is
zero chance of any kind of peace deal this year, since Poroshenko arbitrarily decided to reverse
the agreed-upon terms and announce no moves toward autonomy for the east could take place until Russia
returned control of the border to Ukraine – causing Russia to withdraw from the Normandy format,
since negotiations with such a fucking blockhead are a complete waste of everyone's time.
To be completely fair to RFE/RL, they did not originate the graphic; that came from the highly-imaginative
Institute of World Politics in Ukraine. But it fits perfectly with RFE/RL's style; it's hard for
a one-time CIA-funded leopard to change its spots, and many of it columnists seem to rely far more
on imagination themselves when they are writing their material. So they can own it.
"... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
"... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
"... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal
Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.
Reply
Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM
> ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about
re-assessing Nato.
A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight
I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part
of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.
I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going
on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation
schemes.
Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence
services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient
prior.
Nothing new Strobe
Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria
Nuland in to State in 1993.
Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of
Serbia...........
The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.
likbez -> ilsm...
, -1
Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely
destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of
real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the
middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a
day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day.
$6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time
"oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession"
that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate
to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of
Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get
out of the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the
USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country.
Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since
2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's
reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted
sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had
under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen
years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine,
payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent
since the beginning of this year."
"... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
"... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
"... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
"... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
In August 2015, a
Russian study
suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets
the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still
assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that
can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may
have been used. This seems unlikely.
Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?
Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e.
the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air
scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not
consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have
been involved in the downing of MH17.
Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):
Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?
The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is
that two pieces of
butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:
Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).
These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead
of type 9N314M1 :
Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.
There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested
that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above).
However, even the official investigation
acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of
BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard
9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped
warhead fragments (see image above).
There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found
in the debris: they may simply have been
planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking
the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard
BUK missile.
This explanation is in line with several other facts:
The
tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead
had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more
than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored
by the official investigation.
The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:
They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles.
Wrong!
They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and
R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude
the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17)
would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation
didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).
... ... ...
If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false
photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather
easy part of it.
Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?
He is a long-time
arch-enemy of Russian president Putin.
Russia issued
an arrest warrant against him just two weeks prior to the crash of MH17.
Kolomoisky also created a private army (
Battalion Dnipro
) which fought against the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.
There is a video
of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in
the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle".
In addition, Kolomoyskyi is the owner of
Burisma Holdings , Ukraine's biggest private gas company, which in May 2014 made Hunter Biden,
the son of US vice president Joe Biden,
one of its directors.
Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation
never looked into it.
Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?
If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this
in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone,
they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful
actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military
and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.
Recall that after
the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia
(without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present
any proof for another scenario.
Final note
Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official
investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official
investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.
A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long
NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military
of the
United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right
up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a
press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".
According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and
electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile
cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over
a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17
over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT)
aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine.
Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."
The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany
were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise
RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."
A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering
strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These
are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar
detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli
IAI Harop and
Hero-30 . Usually,
such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed,
about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion
warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed,
timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide
the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar
homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have
to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario:
since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit),
they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more
unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both
surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists.
(There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air
missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size
to the BUK.
"... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox
News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers
that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United
States and Russia.
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle
class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators
(let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful
of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario
Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.
She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are
completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities.
Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not
hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed
that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces
whenever her opinion is solicited. "
Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting
to see how this will play this time.
Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time?
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over
to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC,
the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust
Division)-to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the
Dems that are pushing that.
You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at
Paul Ryan's recommendation.
beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am
I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying
she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still
has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a
better indication that Trump will win.
Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.
likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand
over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC,
the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including
the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===
This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on
(mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican
brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the
election, if he wins.
And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle
vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon.
A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of
DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of
diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.
The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.
I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests
complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.
But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in
addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John
McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon
all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and
a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.
That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed
by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions
members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal
of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that
their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over
again.
It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social
democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both
are worse" :-).
In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that
in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely
dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to
governance of such a huge country crook.
Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of
them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very
sad situation.
Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Good grace.
Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage
Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme
evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise
than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive
tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.
Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have
been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy
proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge
funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and
a son of its founder.
Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's
choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose
interests Trump has at heart get their way.
And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.
One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public
that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell
the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate
the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published
it.
As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was
a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported
John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race,
supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation
Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I
was not happy about it.
Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.
likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm
You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their
gravity options.
All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things
make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.
Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and
specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens
with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.
Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two
wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente
with Russia.
Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is
between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.
This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude:
one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his
electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.
We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation
of the remnants of New Deal.
Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and
bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic
front is temporary.
Monitoring tweets to see who can get into our walled garden.
Recently, Zerocalcare, one of Italy's best young graphic novelists, whose
politics can be described as anarchist but jokey, Roman but semi-serious, was
denied a visa to attend Comicon in New York. The grounds are that his passport
showed recent travel in Syria and Iraq. Our minders didn't have to read tweets.
They only had to read his most recent book, Kobane Calling, in which he
illustrates a trip by a group of anarchistic Italians to Iraqi Kurdistan and
Rojava in Syria. His analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity is quite
subtle. Plenty of highly amusing uses of Roman dialect, which is known for
"lewdness." Also, many bathroom jokes–but that's an Italian national
characteristic (don't call anyone a stronzo, ne).
Meanwhile, Zerocalcare was also nominated for a Strega Prize last year in
narrative for his graphic novel, Dimentica il Mio Nome, about his mother and
grandmother and their mysterious family. He is the first Italian graphic
novelist to be nominated for one of the major prizes.
Obvious an undesirable alien. Peter Thiel is so much more acceptable, as is
Henry Kissinger.
"... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
"... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat
total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton
to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies.
The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the
basement"?
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested
as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives.
Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
"The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce
that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its
constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly
forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do
not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to
be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's
easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.
"... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
"... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
"... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
"... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
"Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian
jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of
a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.
Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo,
which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision,
to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb
them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded
citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."
Still full of shite, of course – Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's
only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal
beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In
Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek,
an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.
This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want
to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian
enthusiasm for a European future.
In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right
next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic
and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into
Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's
desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested
the USA was being belligerent.
The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today
is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it
non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice
no. Does the BBC?
Notice that Netanyahu is suddenly "mending fences" with Russia. Could
someone have whispered in his ear; "Low yield nuke over Tel Aviv?" It
needn't be Russia directly. Say Hizbullah is 'gifted' a Pakistani warhead
through some devious back channels. America is running a proxy war in Syria.
Nothing says that Russia, or China cannot do something similar.
I see no discussion of spillover effects to Libya's neighbors. Think of the
spillover effects attendant to major chaos in Syria!
Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian
Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare,
inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil
War" would produce. Say, the Syrians and Russians establish their own
"No Fly Zone" over southern Syria, and enforce it against all comers,
including the Israeli Air Force. Then supply convoys to Hizbullah in
Lebanon would really ramp up. Voila! The Lebanon Israel border heats
up by orders of magnitude.
I am convinced that H Clinton does not understand the forces she wants
to juggle with.
Where in America would you resettle the millions of refuges from the
destruction of Israel?
I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for
the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg,
resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how
great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.
Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.
Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi.
It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.
Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly
zone, she dodged.
destabilization
of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
Carolinian
October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Adam Curtis and his limitations–here's a taste from a review of new Beeb documentary
Conversely, Curtis concludes with an assertion of such stunning political puerility that it undermines
almost everything that has gone before. He argues of Putin's involvement in Syria: "The Russians
are still there – and no one really knows what they want." Curtis does not know what "the Russians
want" only because his perceptions have been carefully managed by the western media. Russia has very
obvious strategic interests in being there. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover
of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further destabilization of the
Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
Perhaps Curtis' limitation is that he's on the BBC. Apparently you aren't allowed to say anything
nice about Russia on Auntie. The review says Curtis also grants too many good intentions to our western
imperial overlords.
'Hypernormalization' also contained false absolutes. However, Curtis is
an artist, in that he has implicit messages contained within juxtapositions
that aren't necessarily consciously constructed. It's valid but inadequate
to criticize parts out of context of the whole piece.
FFS, it was almost their first response! And the fact that they changed the story in less
than 24 hrs, to blame the Afghan security forces instead, tells you the likely source of this story:
their ass.
'The US-led military coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement on Sunday that said US forces
conducted an airstrike at 2:15am local time on Saturday "against insurgents who were directly firing
upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz."'
Even as we write this, forces are advancing on Mosul to recapture the city from ISIL: the reason
they can do this is because of U.S. airstrikes and troops. Refugee organizations expect something
like 200,000-700,000 refugees from the city. The city was captured a couple of years ago when 1,000
Daesh fighters routed something like 60,000 defenders, mostly because the defenders weren't strongly
motivated to defend: people in the city now have a counter-assassination resistance against ISIL
executions.
That is our intervention. Our bombs will not kill civilians in the city: the disparate groups
of fighters that we support certainly won't commit the usual atrocities of war: the refugee crisis
will no doubt be handled responsibly and will be fully resourced: when the city is recaptured, the
ISIL fighters will be defeated once and for all and we'll never hear from them again.
The people who support this are crazy. They are insane and I can only talk to them in the jocular
way that you'd talk to people who are suffering from such severe mental illness that there is no
way to rationally convince them that their delusions are not real. But these people have not been
institutionalized: they are running our institutions.
LFC:
Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a clear violation of law and norms, and it cannot
be justified by saying: "well, we have to eliminate the violent rebels in this city, and we've offered
a pause to allow the rebels to leave, but the rebels have declined the offer, and therefore the lives
of the civilians [whether they be 30,000 or 200,000] in the city are of no particular concern to
us, . . .
The laws of war are a very particular and even peculiar species of bullshit. I am not a lawyer,
let alone a military lawyer or specialist in such things, but from casual reading of news reporting,
I think you are actually wrong in the above assertion. Giving a warning and an opportunity for combatants
or civilians to vacate an area actually does open up a broad exception. "Exception" is probably the
wrong term, technically, but in operation, . . . The offering of a warning, a pause and opportunities
to vacate are all the laws of war require, in order to excuse the collateral damage that follows
from combat operations against targets that are believed to shelter enemies among civilians.
One need only ask two questions: How many non-combatants have been killed accidentally as 'collateral
damage'? And how many military commanders have been punished for violating the 'laws of war' for
killing non-combatants? The laws of war usually only apply to the losers. The winners seldom if ever
apply them to themselves.
If you don't see any point in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants (yes, the lines
are sometimes blurry, but they are often very clear), and if you don't think that intentions are
of any relevance - that is, if you think there's no difference whatsoever, for instance, between
(1) deliberately blowing up a hospital and (2) accidentally bombing a hospital in a culpably negligent
act of misidentification in the middle of a nighttime battle (as happened in a highly publicized
case in Afghanistan a while back), then we can't have a conversation b.c we are operating in different
universes of discourse.
Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. Do I think statements of
intention are relevant? Harder. I do not have any reliable way of sorting or confirming actual intentions,
as distinguished from propaganda.
I am afraid we are stuck with this universe of discourse. No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe
flight to a more morally certain world.
In my mind, I keep coming back to that NYT Mag profile of Ben Rhodes, the White House speechwriter
(Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications) trying to manage U.S. foreign policy
with rapid fire narratives. This is the world we live in. And, yes, it is one where it is not possible
to distinguish between deliberately blowing up a hospital and accidentally in a culpable act of negligence
blowing up a hospital. Not because there are not relevant moral distinctions, but because any story
is built around those putative distinctions without much regard for facts. As Layman points out,
the "information" given out by officials is dictated by a desire to manipulate public perceptions
and deflect criticism and follows a predictable pattern unrelated to facts of a case.
This discourse has become delusive, as Rich P says above. Sarcasm or mockery may be rude, but
appropriate.
I don't think you can grant even this. Belligerents
know full well that they will kill non-combatants with their preferred tactics, but they use those
tactics anyway because 1) they deem it a fair trade off for achieving their objective while reducing
the risk to their own combatants, and 2) they know there is little likelihood they will be called
to account, and if they are they know they can rely on the 'intentions' defense.
This is evident in their responses. Have they bombed a hospital, a school, a bomb shelter, a refugee
center? Well, yes, but it was OK because someone was shooting at them from that place. Have they
killed several hundred members of a wedding party? Well, it seems so, but they were just trying to
kill a few people, and those few were hiding in a wedding party, the dastardly cowards! What else
could they have done?
Bruce W.
No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.
Actually
Bruce you are the one who has hopped on the plane to a morally certain world, a world in which it
is never possible to distinguish 'intentions' from 'propaganda' and thus a world in which one can
rest secure in the certainty that judgments, however tentative, should never be attempted.
My phrase, "morally certain world" was poor. It doesn't denote what I meant.
I think an objective
observer, weighing the balance of likelihood, would conclude that the U.S. military targeted the
MSF hospital and most probably did so, because the MSF hospital was only facility in the area where
Taliban fighters could seek sophisticated medical treatment. That the choice of target originated
in the U.S. chain of command was confirmed, so there is no dispute really that this choice was made,
though the motivation and objective have been obscured and can only be surmised. No one was disciplined
specifically for initiating the attack - we know this because no one was named let alone court martialled
and sent to Leavenworth as would be nominally appropriate for such an unauthorized(?) act of murder
and mayhem. The only discipline handed out was essentially administrative and only for the negligence
and general snafus that allowed the rest of the chain of command to execute the attack without objection.
Again, a reasonable and objective observer would wonder whether the initiator of the attack might
not have had a hand in arranging things so that the attack went ahead and wasn't short-circuited
by the ordinary and routine controls put in place to prevent such "mistakes".
Presumably, this balance of likelihood is why the MSF wanted an investigation independent of the
U.S. military's own self-examination.
"Blaming the victim" should not be the primary issue, here, though, of course, in the prolonged
sequence of contradictory explanations in an incident that attracted international attention at the
highest levels, the U.S. did at various times officially claim that the Taliban were firing from
the compound and that the MSF complex was not properly marked. There is no particular reason to think
that the sequence of explanations arrived at anything resembling the truth; only a defensible redoubt
of apologia.
Whether the attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz constituted a "war crime" isn't the issue I want
to raise either. I think it was a war crime, but the U.S. has a general policy of committing war
crimes while denying that policy, so unless you think denial is itself a singular virtue is, I do
not understand the argument. If the problem is whether Russia is the bad guy and the U.S. is the
good guy, I don't think the U.S. has much the better argument, at least on the face of it. Pretty
much every "bad guy" atrocity in the record books has a corresponding atrocity with an American signature.
Shoot down a passenger airliner? Check. Unprovoked aggressive war? Check. And so on.
The thing that troubles me - the thing I want to draw attention to - is the delusive effect of
letting moral narrative dominate all policy discussion.
In the case of the Kunduz MSF hospital incident, the effect of moral-narrative-domination is that
we do not know who in the U.S. chain-of-command decided MSF should clear out and the MSF hospital
should close down (and people should be killed and maimed to achieve that objective). The civilian
leadership presumably is not willing to own this policy choice, and they are willing to let the military
bear the costs of demoralization, by disciplining, however mildly proportionate to the consequences
for the dead and maimed victims, those in the chain of command responsible for the "negligence" which
was ultimately trotted out as an excuse for "poor performance" (after several other explanations
failed to stymie high-level criticism).
Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political
ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives,
to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals
(like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational
in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy.
I would submit that the ordinary purpose of international law is not to mandate just conduct per
se, but to establish conventions that allow for political coordination, even between rivals, as well
as facilitate hierarchical control of the state's forces for the centralized control of policy. And,
domination-by-moral-narrative has become a serious handicap, a source of American foreign policy
palsy cum dementia.
I'm not taking the position that morality and ethical conduct do not matter. (I think long-time
readers will realize I am something of an impractical idealist.) What I am trying to draw attention
to is the effect of bull shit justifications: the narratives are drawn up in disregard for their
factual truth value. (Disregard for truth value is kind of the definition of bull shit).
In short, I think judgments should be attempted, even in the face of the obscuring propaganda,
but I think we have to confront the propaganda as propaganda and the doubts and uncertainties it
engenders, as well as the semi-deranged social climate of opinion it engenders, as Rich P points
out.
I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they
can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it
just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then
has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought.
It reminds me of Vietnam.
The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never
true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while
the Village all started to believe it.
None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer
(if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
debate is over!
Back to the real world.
Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
OCT 20
Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The
Syrian Army In Latakia
First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy
clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.
The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed
opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).
They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides
funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.
"... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
"... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
"... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
"... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
"... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
"... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
"... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
"... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
"... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
"... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led
Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands,
Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the
plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned
to the Russian Federation territory."
The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own
investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios
and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."
The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive
evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.
This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by
the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable
satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.
The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins.
Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic
Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.
The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published
a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly"
wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction."
The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls
"Russia's resurgence."
Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract,
Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes
in Syria.
From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist
coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially
manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.
Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer
gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films],"
he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed
off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.
In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian
government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying"
social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite
images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had
been fired by the Syrian army.
Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were
on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to
provide the pretext.
Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack
allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel"
groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered
the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."
Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led
by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol
told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian
government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice
job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation,
it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."
By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally
produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17
was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.
How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was
by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital
detectives fight to keep Russia honest."
In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following
the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to
look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket
denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored
Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War
in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who
had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]
The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered
by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer
to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine
into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.
MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the
Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation,
the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor
and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts.
As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was
based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda.
Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into
Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."
In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17
crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was
a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch
site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or
draw conclusions as to who controlled it.
By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine
DerSpiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat
allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position
on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of
"error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is
why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's
work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."
Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic
Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that
Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if
there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry
of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."
In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen
journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US
government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which
serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.
Red_Mariner
I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program"
Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
thucydide
Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.
A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.
Bob Beal
Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.
On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed.
It documented this in a tweet with
a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.
It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials.
But usually they shy away from outright lies.
Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution,
he said (vid
@1:00) about Syria:
Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for
an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held
accountable for these actions.
No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency
has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every
claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an
event anywhere in Syria.
The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got
canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and
punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of
a United Nations Security Council resolution.
This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of
the UN Security Council.
Early reports, like
this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:
Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing
what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations,
does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record",
Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up
makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.
The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee
also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments
daily press briefing yesterday
had a whole section
on it. Video (@3:30)
shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:
QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you
know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday
on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what
he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --
QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that
he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
...
QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?
MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to
one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.
QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --
MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
...
This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on
DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."
It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate
any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that
would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.
Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever
needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way
to significantly influence that.
Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, made other
accusations against Russia:
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across
Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope
and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities.
Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these
hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity")
that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it
a
blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to
its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see
why these accusations are made now. Murray:
That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is,
on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced
that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House
is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert
its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the
presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are
more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in
Russia's than the Washington's favor.
Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president
and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could
they order up something really stupid?
"... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
"... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
"... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary
Clinton speeches and emails
from her campaign chair John Podesta.
Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via
The Intercept ):
[Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large
amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think
would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...
Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot
of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.
The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an
2014 email to Clinton.
As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
in the region.":
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic
and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi
Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical
Sunni groups in the region.
Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis
provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that
U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.
"... It is fortunate for Saudi Arabia and Qatar that the furor over the sexual antics of Donald Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from Hillary Clinton . Most fascinating of these is what reads like a US State Department memo , dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria. ..."
"... The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." ..."
"... An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not? ..."
"... The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support to Saudi positions. ..."
"... Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they paid up. ..."
"... Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never had to answer for it. ..."
"... A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government. ..."
It is fortunate for
Saudi Arabia and Qatar
that the furor over the
sexual antics of Donald
Trump is preventing much attention being given to the latest batch of leaked emails to and from
Hillary Clinton.
Most fascinating of these is what reads like a
US State Department memo, dated 17 August 2014, on the appropriate US response to the rapid advance
of Isis forces, which were then sweeping through northern Iraq and eastern Syria.
At the time,
the US government was not admitting that Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies were supporting
Isis and
al-Qaeda-type movements.
But in
the leaked memo, which says that it draws on "western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
in the region" there is no ambivalence about who is backing Isis, which at the time of writing was
butchering and raping Yazidi villagers and slaughtering captured Iraqi and Syrian soldiers.
The memo says: "We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to
bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial
and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region." This was evidently received
wisdom in the upper ranks of the US government, but never openly admitted because to it was held
that to antagonise Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, Turkey and Pakistan would fatally undermine
US power in the Middle East and South Asia.
For an extraordinarily long period after 9/11, the US refused to confront these traditional Sunni
allies and thereby ensured that the "War on Terror" would fail decisively; 15 years later, al-Qaeda
in its different guises is much stronger than it used to be because shadowy state sponsors, without
whom it could not have survived, were given a free pass.
It is not as if Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and the US foreign policy establishment
in general did not know what was happening. An earlier WikiLeaks release of a State Department
cable sent under her name in December 2009 states that "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial
support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan]." But Saudi complicity
with these movements never became a central political issue in the US. Why not?
The answer is that the US did not think it was in its interests to cut its traditional Sunni
allies loose and put a great deal of resources into making sure that this did not happen. They brought
on side compliant journalists, academics and politicians willing to give overt or covert support
to Saudi positions.
The real views of senior officials in the White House and the State Department were only periodically
visible and, even when their frankness made news, what they said was swiftly forgotten. Earlier this
year, for instance, Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic wrote a piece based on numerous interviews
with Barack Obama in which Obama "questioned, often harshly, the role that America's Sunni Arab allies
play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy
compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally".
It is worth recalling White House cynicism about how that foreign policy orthodoxy in Washington
was produced and how easily its influence could be bought. Goldberg reported that "a widely held
sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in
Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration
official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as 'Arab-occupied
territory'."
Despite this, television and newspaper interview self-declared academic experts from these same
think tanks on Isis, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf are wilfully ignoring or happily disregarding
their partisan sympathies.
The Hillary Clinton email of August 2014 takes for granted that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding
Isis – but this was not the journalistic or academic conventional wisdom of the day. Instead, there
was much assertion that the newly declared caliphate was self-supporting through the sale of oil,
taxes and antiquities; it therefore followed that Isis did not need money from Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf. The same argument could not be made to explain the funding of Jabhat al-Nusra, which controlled
no oilfields, but even in the case of Isis the belief in its self-sufficiency was always shaky.
Iraqi and Kurdish leaders said that they did not believe a word of it, claiming privately
that Isis was blackmailing the Gulf states by threatening violence on their territory unless they
paid up. The Iraqi and Kurdish officials never produced proof of this, but it seemed unlikely
that men as tough and ruthless as the Isis leaders would have satisfied themselves with taxing truck
traffic and shopkeepers in the extensive but poor lands they ruled and not extracted far larger sums
from fabulously wealthy private and state donors in the oil producers of the Gulf.
Going by the latest leaked email, the State Department and US intelligence clearly had no
doubt that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Isis. But there has always been bizarre discontinuity
between what the Obama administration knew about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states and what they would
say in public. Occasionally the truth would spill out, as when Vice-President Joe Biden told students
at Harvard in October 2014 that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates "were so determined
to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do? They poured hundreds
of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.
Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements
of jihadis coming from other parts of the world". Biden poured scorn on the idea that there were
Syrian "moderates" capable of fighting Isis and Assad at the same time.
Hillary Clinton should be very vulnerable over the failings of US foreign policy during the
years she was Secretary of State. But, such is the crudity of Trump's demagoguery, she has never
had to answer for it. Republican challenges have focussed on issues – the death of the US ambassador
in Benghazi in 2012 and the final US military withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 – for which she was not
responsible.
A Hillary Clinton presidency might mean closer amity with Saudi Arabia, but American attitudes
towards the Saudi regime are becoming soured, as was shown recently when Congress overwhelmingly
overturned a presidential veto of a bill allowing the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi
government.
Another development is weakening Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies. The leaked memo speaks of
the rival ambitions of Saudi Arabia and Qatar "to dominate the Sunni world". But this has not turned
out well, with east Aleppo and Mosul, two great Sunni cities, coming under attack and likely to fall.
Whatever Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the others thought they were doing it has not happened and
the Sunni of Syria and Iraq are paying a heavy price. It is this failure which will shape the future
relations of the Sunni states with the new US administration.
"... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
"... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
"... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
"... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
"... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month
that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012
when other polls were wrong. Just saying
likbez -> Adamski... , -1
> "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do."
Yes. Thank you for making this point.
Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit
MSM are pouring on Americans.
As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF)
the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly
even WWIII.
One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that
remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.
Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of
TBTF to rip people another four years.
Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.
The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal
media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers,
who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism
to survive.
And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts
is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the
elections.
That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in
the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt
establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight
of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect
threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences
for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner,
whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they
forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently
culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from
connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out
organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced.
Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are
instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate
entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent
ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their
own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads
to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything
resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding
liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level
of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly
distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that
their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines
that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant
exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police
no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent
to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating
even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares
to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive
boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their
anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments
are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen
spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities.
..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think
..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is
sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled
as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely,
but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular
question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice
what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their
cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage
of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately,
such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day.
For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness
in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on
corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect
the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent
indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies,
and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless
herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment
and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have
to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition
a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's
day is never quite done. In my recent article
'The
Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations
required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently
wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually
confronted and defeated.
Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill
apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for
standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every
corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal
that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have
been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another
religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air.
Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters
bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken,
even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk
their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective
is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality
almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked
for the sake of the group.
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public
gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount
to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms.
The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting
with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized
forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating
and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of
a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive
organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us
from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into
meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only
movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of
their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to
the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are
enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required.
Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust
each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures
are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support.
People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore,
a potential risk to the state.
You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government
gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty,
and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly
hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine
upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake;
they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime
leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance
of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while
demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain
a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation
keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously
chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end
them.
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived
notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny
right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on
every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position.
Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed
nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation,
terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed.
The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority
emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of
the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards
out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and
small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers,
behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous
and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their
ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed,
and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person
or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the
minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders
of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already
disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media
in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views,
and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered
by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive
anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them
directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an
elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention,
and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the
truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself,
but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our
propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother
bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted
to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is
the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and
soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for
power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate
the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery.
Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons
of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly
unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with
persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and
a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin
to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start
to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members.
Free speech is effectively neutralized.
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord
over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies
are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they
can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of
conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware.
However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put
in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America
today.
Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality
is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those
labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is
done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within
their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real
question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At
what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and
take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities,
their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment
constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the
line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable
in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again
into the very best in us all.
Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down
on Yemen.
Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially
right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.
Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple
incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.
Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I
get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that
a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've
been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the
start.
This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis. I want to
see how they tell the world that this was all legal.
END PRIVATE FINANCE! The folks that own private finance also own the US and many other governments.....with
or without vote rigging as one of their tools.
"... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
"... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
"... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
"... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
"... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
"... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
"... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
"... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
"... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
"... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
"... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
"... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
"... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
"... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
"... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
"... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
"... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.
Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent
bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving
Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance
companies (yet another looting scheme.)
Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald
Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since
wrapping up the nomination.)
"... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.
"He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending,
like ARRA short term and ACA long term.
"He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and
QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "
Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite
of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.
"His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another
looting scheme.)"
The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan
issuance.
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and
almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax
bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions
for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."
From CNN Money:
"At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of
GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession.
But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was
still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the
long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending
will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read.
As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had
wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million)
he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare
insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.
(Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for
its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T
a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of
them indefinitely in 2013. "
Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the
BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.
And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional
surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.
The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since
the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.
Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least,
in any sensible accounting.
"From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1%
of GDP.
...
And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to
5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as
well be tiramisu.
First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already
mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.
Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's
just the nature of automatic stabilizers.
You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak
as being somehow less than "centrist."
Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets
talk about what that category includes and doesn't.
The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to
promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half
defense cuts.
Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades,
as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary
spending continues to go up.
Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense
discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.
So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on
balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than
he's lowered them on everyone else.
Not centrist? Pfft.
"Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read."
Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.
"As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."
No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate
increases.
You were saying?
" If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced
by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without
giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."
Ugh. Just painful.
Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less
expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet,
so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).
But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage.
It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges
for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable
competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary
Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option"
means.
Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage
deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama
also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA,
not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this
history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?
"Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs
for higher incomes were NOT extended."
So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been
that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while
everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"
The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama
raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical
territory.
"No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise"
From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million
more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours
a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing
in the world."
"Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public
option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"
You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare
insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still
have no healthcare insurance.
I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare
insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've
been a more effective patchwork reform.
Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer
system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to
my original point.
"But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"
From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent
residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."
"Please, just stop."
You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and
pathetic attempts at browbeating.
ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges
is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer
was needed to keep the thugs honest.
Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual
vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market']
assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".
"I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public
option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding
for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line
of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.
Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition
to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life,
to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.
" I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals
were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care
reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have
the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :
"Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance,
while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The
Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"
The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's
market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.
"ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with
ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies.
Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."
Yeah ... what?
The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill
that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises
for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare
age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.
"Shifting to banking......
Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?
When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"
Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?
During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis
crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases
since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.
MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments
that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never
carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet,
which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a
pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money
to deliberately expand monetary supply.
The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security
spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.
Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while
spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.
The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian
mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms
that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country
is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.
The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over
the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the
center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during
the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.
To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic
spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway
are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade
Next."
By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush
Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal
economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck
session.
If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's
ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal
era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it
too late.)
Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon
scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq
vote a Manchurian candidate?
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
…
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
…
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
…
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it – head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech…
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little…
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth – pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not
so much…
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).
"... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
"... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
"... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
"... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
"... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
"... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite
NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."
@244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming
2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.
All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are
now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all
the peace and stability we bring to the region.
This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and
the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill
enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .
Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary
and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime
change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.
Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has
actually driven me to turn off the nets .
Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current
war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars
.
I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.
"... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
"... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
"... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
"... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
"... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
"... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
"... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
"... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
"... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
"... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
"... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
"... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
"... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
"... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears
to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist
sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired
by national identity in countless other countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious
circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict
in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.
Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
...
'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews):
The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir
of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.
The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship
between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it
might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution.
Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for
the short term.
The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands
of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.
However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial
society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other
with random farm implements.
The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US
elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment
for Democracy or their deputies...
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for
this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute
of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council
on Foreign Relations.
As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding
of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal
foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody
nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution).
A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and
couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was
expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her
on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully
implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.
But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way
like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably
equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy,
not POTUS.)
The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society
this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able
to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion,
but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.
Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the
Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous.
The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn
into the second John McCain on a dime.
Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the
brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep
state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of
prisoners of the position they want so much.
Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both
require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very
hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility
of some very stupid moves.
Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep
state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly
as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are
people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.
In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces.
And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.
So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign
policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.
In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary
is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush.
So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.
A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high
political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be
tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the
Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might
learn the lesson.
But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that
Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart
for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned
by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would
be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions
of Clinton Foundation.
And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and
this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate
her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially
if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and
not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction
might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.
As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away
for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.
Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election.
In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both
Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were
Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.
Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease,
which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two
the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like
a person with HIV;
http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/)
that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).
I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states
as Russia and China.
I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can
play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political
system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth
of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support
for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.
Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM
Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently
be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive,
and without direction.
Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in
a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's
significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important
as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic
of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.
Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism,
has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which
have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers
have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate
and nonrational qualities....
[ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older
essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here.
]
Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and
Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.
Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing
at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide
of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.
Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best
when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism"
where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being
run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during
the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned
by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.
The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion
and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most
are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this
up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild
as well, they come from the same cloth).
Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............
Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:
1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism
to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels
that it losing the control over peons.
2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the
search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying
to substitute them for Russians
3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There
is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered
zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any
social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.
So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially
right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship
in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved
the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.
the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their
decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
cm -> cm... , -1
Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated
like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of
a recourse usually).
cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM
This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant
in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may
have. It is not even luck.
Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM
I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings
usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is
saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success.
Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people
they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.
cm -> Procopius...
The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always
have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."
"... Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's? ..."
"... The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes. ..."
"... Shooting down Russian planes is the plan. ..."
"... If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again. ..."
"... This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right. ..."
"... Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery. ..."
"... At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems. ..."
"... All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change. ..."
"... With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave. ..."
"... The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving. ..."
"... A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic. ..."
"... Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators. ..."
"... I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense. ..."
...I purposefully haven't addressed anything about the recent history of American involvement
in war in Syria, because that would lead to the same old accusations that this is about hating
America.
But now we're talking about the present as a guide to the future. Does anything about the known
history of recent American involvement in Syria indicate that there are detailed expert analyses
available that will do any good once filtered through policy? Is the solution supposed to
be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's?
What crap-for-brains doesn't seem to appreciate is that there are only two sets of pilots
and planes for the US to shoot down: pilots flying under the Syrian flag and those flying under
the Russian flag. There will be no 'random' misunderstandings and miscommunications for Hillary
to hide behind. And that's before Russia decides to flex in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and the Baltic
states.
The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in
a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes.
Shooting down Russian planes is the plan.
If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq,
violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living
through it real time all over again.
This time we have the CT majority in favor of Bush III and her invasions.
@180 I'm extremely grateful, btw, to see you gaming out how the US plays chicken with the Russians
who 'back down' as a 'reason to vote for Hillary.'
This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery,
emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq
with the promise to this time get it right.
Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad.
Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years
thanks to US and UK wankery.
At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however,
or so it seems.
All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and
Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime
change.
You're voting in favor of invading Iraq all over again. Thanks!!!
The Syrian/Iraqi wars are …complicated. But they are both – from the viewpoint of the major combatants
– the same war, a contest between the two current major streams of political thought in the Islamic
Middle East. Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a militias are active in support of the regime in Damascus,
as are Sunni Palestinian ones and the Druze. Christian and Yezidi groups and Kurdish nationalists
have lined up behind both Baghdad and Damascus. One the other side is a loose grouping of Salafi
Islamists – ISIS, an-Nusra, the many groups under the FSA umbrella. There are, of course, a few
politiques in the middle, too small to count in the fighting, but much courted by the press, and
always trotted out as the "moderate opposition". Any intervention that tries to slice across the
broad lines of division soon gets hopelessly tangled diplomatically and militarily. As the US
has found out.
With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels
for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control.
Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by
the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda
linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government
does the rebel enclave.
The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly
offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried
through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to
have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving.
A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning
and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy
in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic.
Peter T: "A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning
and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy
in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic."
Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of
the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win
would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators.
I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling
a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes
up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense.
Robert Shiller is a talented guy who is pretty sleazy. Note that he never mentions neoliberalism
as the real reason we got into the current situation.
"Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but
it has been blocked." Blocked by whom? Elves and fairies? Klingons?
Instead he tried deceive along the lines of behavioral economics: " If they realize that they
are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious... Ethnic nationalism creates an
ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior
and conspiracies.
Notable quotes:
"... The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs. ..."
"... A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancičre of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality. ..."
"... Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default. ..."
Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a
disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism.
Leaders today often do not openly declare themselves to be ethnic nationalists -
in which identity is defined by perceived genetic, religious or linguistic
heritage rather than democratic ideals or principles. But political appeals to
such forms of identity are nevertheless widespread.
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J.
Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin
has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we
see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in other
countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other
than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about
the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of
forms of violent ethnic terrorism. Economics is my specialty, and I think
economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
Yet economic growth continues, though at a reduced pace, and not just in the United
States. According to the
International
Monetary Fund
, real world gross domestic product was 29 percent higher in 2015 than
it was just before the recession, in 2007. It has just grown at a lower rate than
before, 3.2 percent a year in the eight years after 2007 compared with 4.5 percent a
year in the eight years ending in 2007. Perhaps that doesn't sound like a big enough
difference to affect political outcomes.
But the modest slowdown could be a big part of the explanation for the apparent rise of
ethnic nationalism, if combined with another factor: rising inequality, along with
considerable fear about future inequality.
The numbers are stark. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
earnings have been basically static. In the bureau's language, "median usual weekly
earnings - in constant (1982-84) dollars (employed full time)" has hardly grown in a
generation. The total increase since this data series began in 1979 has been only 1.2
percent, or 0.03 percent a year. The increase has been less than 1 percent since 2007.
Even such paltry economic growth is going to the very top, not to the median wage
earner. That means that roughly half of full-time wage earners are doing less well in
real terms than their parents were.
Benjamin M. Friedman
of Harvard
University, in his book "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth"
(Knopf, 2005)
,
said that at a deep level people make judgments about the economic progress that they
see in their own lifetimes, and in comparison with the progress made by the previous
generation, especially their own parents. Few people study economic growth statistics.
But nearly everyone knows what they are being paid. If they realize that they are doing
less well than their forebears, they become anxious. And if they can't see themselves
and others in their cohort as progressing over a lifetime, their social interactions
often become angry, resentful and even conspiratorial.
Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure:
Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies. Often, ethnic, racial or
religious conflict follows. Among the horrific examples are the atrocities committed in
the name of nationalism during World War II - not coincidentally following
the Great Depression
. Mr. Friedman provides other such instances from the last two
centuries in which ethnic conflict followed slow economic growth.
He does point out many exceptions to these generalizations: Some poor and unequal
societies experience very little violence. But it appears that a sense of falling behind
economically among a substantial segment of a population does encourage ethnic
nationalism and conflict.
The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away
from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline
of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology
that is replacing jobs.
Even those who have not lost out yet in terms of economic power are fearful that they
might. The causes of inequality, particularly advances in information technology, are
not going away soon. These perceptions have damaged people's sense of economic security,
even beyond what economic data reveal to be objectively true.
A 2015 study published in The
American Economic
Review
by
Michael Kumhof
of the Bank of England,
Romain Rancičre
of the International Monetary Fund and
Pablo Winant
of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the
1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising
inequality.
Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who
tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the
authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted
investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default.
Linking these causes to the rise of ethnic nationalism is imprecise; these factors
reflect a long-term loss of confidence. Such fears are often vague and ill formed, but
their effects are powerful.
There are some remedies, even if they are not popular or easily executed.
Hillary Clinton's proposals to raise taxes on those with the very highest incomes to
fund programs for lower-income people, for example, may not generate much enthusiasm
from those whose incomes have not grown as expected and who may be doing less well than
their parents. That is because many people do not like the sound of a proposed handout
even if it might help them; they aspire to prove their own worth by earning a good
income, and yet that prospect eludes them.
But something has to be done about the two trends of rising inequality and weak economic
growth, for if they continue we may see more unhappiness, discontent and political
disruption. Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked.
Making the tax system progressive enough to break the trend toward ever greater income
inequality has also been beyond our grasp, yet it may be the best option we have.
The
consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more
far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist
haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come
to pass.
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Regarding
Saudia Arabia Support of ISIS
October 12, 2016
"Aren't the Saudis your friends?" Obama smiled. "It's complicated," he
said. "My view has never been that we should throw our traditional
allies"-the Saudis-"overboard in favor of Iran." President Barack Obama
"We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance and as strong a
friendship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had." Secretary
of State John Kerry
"The strategic partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia is
based on mutual interests and a longstanding commitment to facing our common
threats together." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
"I think Saudi Arabia is a valuable partner in the war on terror. If you
want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for." Senator
Lindsey Graham
"There is a public relations issue that exists. That doesn't mean that
it's in our national interest to not have an alliance with them - I mean
they're an important part of our efforts in the Middle East." said Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker
Citing Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, and Intelligence from the
Region, that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-not just its rich donors– was
providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other
radical Sunni groups, we would like to know why President Obama, Secretary
of State John Kerry, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the
House Paul Ryan, Senator Bob Corker, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator
John McCain, would EVER consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia our ally.
Markedly, this is not complicated, nor is it a friendship, a special
relationship, a valuable partnership, a clear alliance, a
strategicpartnership, or a public relations issue.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terrorism.
According to Western Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence and Intelligence
from the region, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia clandestinely funds and
logistically supports ISIS.
How could a nation like Saudi Arabia (or Qatar) that funds or
logistically supports ISIS be considered an ally of the United States in the
fight against ISIS?
The Saudis (and the Qataris) are funding and logistically supporting our
enemy.
The United States Government should not condone, enable, or turn a blind
eye to that fact.
As 9/11 family members whose husbands were brutally murdered by 19
radical Sunni terrorists, we strongly request these appointed and elected
officials immediately explain their indefensible positions with regard to
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its now clearly evident role in underwriting
and logistically supporting radical Sunni terror groups worldwide.
We also look forward to these appointed and elected officials immediately
explaining to the American public why they oppose JASTA or want to re-write
JASTA anti-terrorism legislation specifically designed to hold the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia accountable for its funding and logistical support of
radical Sunni terror groups that kill Americans.
Finally, we would like to, once again, wholeheartedly thank all those
members of Congress who saw the wisdom in making JASTA law. Clearly, this
new evidence further validates your vote and support for JASTA. Furthermore,
this evidence proves that JASTA was not a political vote, but rather a vote
to keep Americans safer from terrorism.
"... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a
long time.
. . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government
and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived
inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to
tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in
which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed
or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.
Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also
initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international
market.[16]
The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers
able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing
sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s
purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew
that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence
had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima
Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki
The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put
a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to
worry the biggest militaries.
Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry.
Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one
could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce
them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the
great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and
long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier
swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and
ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations.
Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an
ex-US combat vessel.
The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades.
Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.
In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will
burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings
recently.
Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One
started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and
meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access
to serious missile technology.
The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their
aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the
British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet
codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.
As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military
Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..
I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.
I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves,
and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers
far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.
Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the
Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to
them!
If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.
I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are
spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity.
Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement
costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is
obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb
Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb
Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between
a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming
obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.
The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number
of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships
and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the
world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone
elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive
compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited – to (for example)
the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.
As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing
a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale
can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as
fleet in being , which
essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying
to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept – continually setting off rumours of new
strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided
and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these
rumours may be true – many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with
the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.
A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest.
When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest,
an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram
is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain
troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.
Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you
need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through
stupidity and cynicism.
Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war
torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands,
why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that?
It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the
wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or
the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this
earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
- that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.
ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened
as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.
The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain
says like drunken sailors.
I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other
parts of the Russian economy.
By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower
for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective
and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However,
they've had their white elephants too – their new
Yasen Class attack
submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing
has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large
ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault
ships from France).
USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is
the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground
with the USA.
Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not
exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military
power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing
to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new
players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical
reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts
to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to
any of Vietnam's interests.
What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market.
Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's
ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily
on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and
expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.
What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little
cultural/common ground with the USA.
I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US
offering better terms – at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA
skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.
Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived
cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless
of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders
and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).
This state of affairs pisses people off.
In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad
today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American
have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences
what so ever. Because fuck Nürenberg.
Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another
tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America,
sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed
in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers,
those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something
will show up?
Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that
they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from
inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected – at least for a
while*.
*)
Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers
can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at
all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But,
everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption
from falling off the road.
This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans
are treated like shit too.
Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English
is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure,
and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become
/ is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half
brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French
people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English
/ Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western)
Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails:
corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a
target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way
to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.
My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election
of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted
Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN.
Disaster ensued:
So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance
for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium,
possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background
context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner
no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria
did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted
it would in previous columns .
Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows,
Gutteres won.
If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government
would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite
knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov
is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of
the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as
the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's
qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?
Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions.
Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will
never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional
Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the
US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.
At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power
and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected
as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get
the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!
PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria.
Or for any other nation.
global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind
resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.
The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles"
that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian
war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The
forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition
for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.
Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit
generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish
behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century
US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the
Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared
from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like
the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.
Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked
or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many
contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will
not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and
remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic
hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital
fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually
hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing
only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the
same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of
global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall,
however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under
East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the
current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism
on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.
"The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by
big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are
lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental,
senior, health, and consumer organizations.
The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of
regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom.
It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need
to combat climate change."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
by Andrea Germanos
The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'
From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was
an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries,
somewhat.
Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown
and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations,
corporate predations and financial hegemony.
Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.
This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and
doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different
thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement
to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that
Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The
outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you
go to Russia to put them out.
While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly
vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because
of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and
social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply
with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international
oversight. The USA does not.
When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed
countries work.
"RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.
" US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims
of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
"deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
their relatives.
The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests"
and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed,
trained or supported by the US.
"If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied
by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to
satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States,"
Obama said."
-----------------------
To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles –
.Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
..they would be days like this Obama said
One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement
provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or
practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
(source:
http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp
)
"Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official
Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."
I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring
the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe
that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is
a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial
US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would
be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply
withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing
insurgency against foreign jihadists.
In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a
state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that
they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.
Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key
diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran
for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage
in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our
role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.
The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on
policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies
would change dramatically.
Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will
do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies.
We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been
constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys,
they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions
where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .
Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises
and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential
nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you
can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..
Fascinating thread, thanks.
I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video
feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to
gain soft power – and revenue.
The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately
the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.
However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling.
" Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust,
with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones
. (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue
that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon
Rhys Meyers).
I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural
endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce.
And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution
service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be
quite formidable.
This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless,
the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles,
desktops, and smart TVs around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million
views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over
3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media
phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and
story-line."
I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to
include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever
gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power'
resource.
That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.
I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face
a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship.
The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists – just look at how a formerly
great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese
society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces.
I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that
Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given
up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film,
but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.
LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF
showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of
those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences
are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.
And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is
laughable.
I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.
After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis
Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?
"... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
"... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
"... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
"... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
"... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
"... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
"... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
"... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
"... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
"... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
"... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
"... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
"... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
"... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
"... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
"... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
"... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
"... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
"... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
"... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
"... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
"... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
"... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia
and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.
There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar
and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers
off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more
of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.
Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the
US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial
– i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within
striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap
submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having
things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.
The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single
strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way
it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly
based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered
that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure
to make things worse.
Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.
That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come
to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy
towards Russia.
A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from
a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands
for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK
and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success)
with a bucket of salt.
Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need
to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with
or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone
I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?
On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday
evening and unable to say so.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike
domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.
Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced
him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the
Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody
forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and
turn it into an Isis stronghold.
Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.
Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable
blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting
rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive
democratic governments in South and Central America.
He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he
sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.
I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated
by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy
is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard
liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than
his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.
I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change!
Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins
bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.
I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population
believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even
know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the
USA.
The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine
a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.
The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke
of change could change course.
It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone
is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.
For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized
is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits
the leaders to do it in one scoop.
Many view Obama as a type of
Manchurian candidate
, sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep
distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the
latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.
Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it,
while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media
seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.
As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between
overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive
stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.
good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically
where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies
equally republican.
See:
Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria
"Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to
his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history
as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke
and mirrors clear.
History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy"
that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians
will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
see: https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be
a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email,
knocking him off the summit.'
Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic
expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama
was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the
2006-2008 period.
The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of
Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage
securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall
any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue
the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).
I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.
What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents,
which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and
beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush
in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,
in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by
those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway.
One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has
now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.
the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is
a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while
in office.
maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals
to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting
any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching
with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court.
sorry, running out of time here.
Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years
of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands
of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget,
the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the
Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.
In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if
Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.
On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll
see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.
With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But
supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid
stuff?"
It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and
Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations
of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule
22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends
him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually
get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.
Obama can and has
accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised
to his other supporters - not us.
This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always
been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.
What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended
candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number
is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.
It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes
in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.
The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama
surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed
allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."
Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria
might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states
or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and
sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future:
in the next few years.
Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's
recent remarks that both
Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.
"Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting
hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington,
where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent
.
Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering
the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It
has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.
Kerry's
continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical
in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.
Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing
him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute
noted :
" In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault
about a new UN resolution,
he said
( vid @1:00) about
Syria:
"'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg
for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be
held accountable for these actions.'
" No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press
agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably
notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything
about such an event anywhere in Syria. "
However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against
Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the
aid of a few regional players - and with
ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention
billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal
basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure,
which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of
committing war crimes in the process.
Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has
become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians
(what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As
noted by Foreign Policy :
"The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the
coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah
and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds
of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their
daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United
States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and
logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."
Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used
in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and
his family. As Foreign Policy
reported in March of this year:
"According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason.
What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and
his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."
At the time this article's publication,
over 140 Yemenis had
been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the
weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major
players at the U.N.
When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten
severe
economic retaliation.
How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear,
as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.
This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just
maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could
be held accountable, instead of just those who
pose an economic
threat to the West . Mango327
38BWD22
Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM
Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years
old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "???
This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations
who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against
humanity and SHOT!
"Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x
That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode
such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what
it might mean. Now we know it in spades.
Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie."
Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass
scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute.
But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in
the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates
its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is
in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).
The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that
has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.
And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of
the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.
Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that
really is.
Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the
gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children,
doctors, nurses and other personell.
I for one would like to know who it was who flew those
planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals
have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the
beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug
financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think
there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they
sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?
Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it,
we're freedom fighters."
My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization
beyond this is moot.
Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're
all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.
The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.
The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more
and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with
military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more
suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard
Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard
Theresa May give several years ago.
Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with
elections.
Exclusive:
A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses
$100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the
will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for
Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer
the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder
case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.
Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any
evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses
a full column
in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression,
calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans
are looking at for the first time."
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly
on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of
Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The
United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether
we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this
challenge."
That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular
president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks
to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means
removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.
And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially
took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing
governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those
functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.
NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign
policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through
U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.
That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses
some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs
both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments
in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic
institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.
NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President
Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside
Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the
east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War
between the U.S. and Russia.
Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside
Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013
column also published in The Washington Post.
In that column, Gershman
wrote
that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may
find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even
bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.
Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and
neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State
Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a
rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by
a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the
voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine
and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian
"invasion" and "annexation."
The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation"
or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused
to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.
The ATO, spearheaded by
neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion
and other extremists, killed thousands
of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the
rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."
Blaming Putin
In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the
courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's
neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered
the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in
Russia.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of
"mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the
paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads
suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and
adversaries who have met untimely deaths.
In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious
deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death
squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered
by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such
thing.
"Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts
the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their
innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is
contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to
Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.
Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will"
to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president
from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington
and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic
neocon hubris.
While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking
through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia
with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as
the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.
Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream
while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red
Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could
succeed.
Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian
"liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that
reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the
Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.
Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he
is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might
well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother
Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme
might be their last – and the last for all humanity.
A Neocon Slush Fund
Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should
tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create
dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED
appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's
desires.
CIA Director William Casey.
If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie
evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that
ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them
to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.
But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging
of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the
CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable
to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under
Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the
offending electoral winner.
In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been
moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding
mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they
could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically
organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity
that would serve as a conduit for this money.
In
one undated letter
to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey
urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the
strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front
in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or
advocate," Casey wrote.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided
to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic
parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was
assured.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any
association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any
current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped
write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about
to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door
to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the
language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the
aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its
significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of
Raymond and Casey.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl
Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future
of the new entity and American foreign policy.
Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful
socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only)
president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in
the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.
For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond
wrote
to
two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to
the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political
dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have
to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.
"Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has
already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."
Neocon Tag Teams
From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a
$200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's
first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House,
accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the
liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of
a Pass-Through."
The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)
Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary,
often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both
organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries
deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.
Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing
"non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating
those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.
For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House
joined together
to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament
that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.
Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to
"restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their
ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon
require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between
registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and
potential criminal charges."
Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act
that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence
U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines
or imprisonment.
But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian
government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic
organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped
justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."
Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's
Gershman. On July 28, 2015,
a Post editorial
and
a companion column
by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was
paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened
Russian sovereignty.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the
law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to
register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall
prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.
The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an
'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May
[2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations
of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and
its national security.'
"The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's
grantees in Russia last year
ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated
transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom
of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities
make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.
"The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to
one signed in 2012
that gave authorities the power to declare
organizations '
foreign
agents
' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from
abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."
However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their
readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after
the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had
already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013
column
- that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.
In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government
illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for
Democracy … was
declared an "undesirable organization"
prohibited from operating in
Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a
worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:
"This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian
democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression,
the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not
backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the
'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict
international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a
better future for Russia."
The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with
international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is
good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But
hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic
impact of the column.
Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's
money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments
would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations
whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in
someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he
dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon
the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued
rule of Vladimir Putin.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
).
I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in
response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S.
can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct
threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as
the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that
fight and need to let others take care of it.
Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good
response.
Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his
entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or
should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion
nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that
position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a
no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.
That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile
state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal
tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people
("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal
with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies
on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county
to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to
trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA
(due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of
economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people
live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far
more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity
to catalog them.
... ... ...
Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle
threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold
War.
... ... ...
The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime
Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent
political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.
... ... ...
Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists
who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in
the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.
In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists
who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed
Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who
sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street
protests, which Nayem helped organize.
Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention
of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging
of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the
special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source
of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase
price was allegedly below market
The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner
of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were
paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation
While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home,
his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.
Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops
and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko
scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.
The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption
crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.
If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.
"... To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. ..."
Hillary:
To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are
located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting
our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians.
And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously
the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded
a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.
The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
France and Iraq.
The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10
bomb bodies. …
Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech
weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY
innocent…
"Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military
sales contract for various bomb bodies"
Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?
Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in
Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike
on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.
The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the
city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.
The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest
strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …
And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
Or at least
Tony Podesta's bank account.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned
he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term -
arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his
aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.
But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to
another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this
speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops
into battle in Afghanistan.
... ... ...
He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed
civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What
began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits
for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.
"... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
"... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working
to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade
that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable
in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count
the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's
nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.
Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this
issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal
death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.
Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Not only America deserves it – the world does.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at
[email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
I think I got this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this
morning, but it's a real eye-opener. Very interesting to hear the other side's
point of view. Worth your 10 min if you got time.
"... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
"... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
"... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
"... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
"... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
"... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
"... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason
why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression.
They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get
the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed
workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey
and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies
have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular
electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian
and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods
of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based
analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only
force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only
system that is fighting ISIS?"
This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is
reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been
a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to
fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed
to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds,
and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but
Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information
about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this
lies with our media.
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks
have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world
now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend
on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State
Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they
feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that
passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans,
seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters
are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness
of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting
from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra,
is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia
is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for
years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but
because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we
often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants
to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing,
simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the
recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were
based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In
2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to
kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power,
at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused
for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to
remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries.
If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance
is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations.
It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with
the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi,
and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely
to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown
University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM
The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the
elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other
is not is ludicrous.
When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the
angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we
have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now,
remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to
Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their
ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight
over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike
there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the
fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the
pieces.
jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM
"Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made
up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."
I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I
DO KNOW that this claim is false.
tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM
jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but
an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.
pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM
Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of
State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely
taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.
kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM
Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs.
She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged
her on this. He really needs to.
NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM
Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like
nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way
they control the media and by proxy - us!
"... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
"... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
"... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led
to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed
Russia.
Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry
class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation
of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating
tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix
of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that
might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous
disaster in Iraq.
Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one,
U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists
, there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian
rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its
"allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
.................................
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/
The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence
outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:
Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said
that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish
safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to]
make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues
to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the
military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."
Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence
outlined.
That last part is not really true. Trump has
endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on
more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a
safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that
Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that
Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching
the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities
with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept
invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that
mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target
for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this
issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation
in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates
to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.
Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't
know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did
a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions
of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier
trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's
many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither
VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for
his party's ticket.
" it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"
I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit
flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense
straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.
Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call
Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval
Office for the fifth time.
As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements
that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems
to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more
like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.
So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems
Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at
the administration any chance you get).
As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about
Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.
But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points
and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for
Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah,
but he's with Trump..ewww."
It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump
out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past
the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's
an actual strong case.
The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see
many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream
or the enemy.
Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general
message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the
Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?
I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I
would have liked that campaign very much.
If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me
who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.
Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against
run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice
from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard
when it comes to "experts".
Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a
stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.
The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America
'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite
tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away
with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care
what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.
Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely
Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the
credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners
personality are dominant this cycle.
Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.
"The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate
suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said
when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened
to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences
this would have. He kept invoking"
I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would
be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.
But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going
to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence,
but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.
Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was
disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands
dying.
As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be
praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush
43 did to his.
"Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US
troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.
So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a
possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.
This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not
really understand the ramifications of their actions.
Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of
american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely
against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would
have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did
we end up with these two choices?
LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of
thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against
the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the
USA:
China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight
times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics,
culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British"
Columbia), and Australia, in particular).
Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear
exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.
How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3. 1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them). 3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.
In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?
Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with
Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.
Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria.
To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he
be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria
the cradle of Christianity.
"Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands
of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes
completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat
ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."
it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly
what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country
that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a
country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting
both sides at the same time depending on the location.
It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding
the region was a bad idea.
" This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"
My belief.
Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since
"liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead
of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance
instead of single-payer.
Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but
wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates
were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright
ignore them.
So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always
plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told
them they were pretty and deserved better.
Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.
It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and
more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube
comment section.
I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather
than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent
ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support
getting deeply involved in Syria?
In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the
votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he
becomes president.
"In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the
votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he
becomes president."
Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for
the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.
Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for
President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice
with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an
election or you look weak.
Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important
debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast.
Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals
have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.
"My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out
of Syria."
One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that
anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out?
Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?
Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with
the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And
actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism
policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch
" (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world
hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often
rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence
of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial
complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates
perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational
corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of
the countries without paying for it.
Notable quotes:
"... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
"... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
"... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
"... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
"... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
"... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
"... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
"... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
"... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
"... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
"... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
"... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by
that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part
of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester
Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether
the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.
A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps
such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."
What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing
the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"
The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates.
Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with
the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated
making to it.
If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why
I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into,
and expansive punditry regarding, issues like
how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and
how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security
issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention.
So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.
With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed
to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend
itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.
In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no
first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear
attack. According to press reports, President Obama had
toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture.
Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes
made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser
candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of "
What is Aleppo? "
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully
laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address
the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to
early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the
field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday
weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from
the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably
referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in
Afghanistan ,
Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s,
they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are
not keeping up with other countries."
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody
to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear
alternative happens, it's over."
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms
like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something
of a contribution.
Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and
"first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation.
The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack
could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering
a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your
opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not
the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked
his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché
much favored in
Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North
Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in
check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted.
"China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."
If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many
thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the
necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran
has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they
should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with
North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,"
he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian
art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's
behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry:
"Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time,"
did the Obama administration fork over
$400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest
explanation-"It was actually
$1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizonby decrying the one
action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least
in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction.
"All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end
up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the
other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way,
it had been a Joycean performance.
Bridge Over Troubled Waters?
It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf
caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different
course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was
in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone
of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile
of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she
evidently actually has about nuclear issues.
"[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president.
And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South
Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."
It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks
to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to
history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play
well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing
audiences to nod-or nod off.
"It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign
has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked
with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of
the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."
Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered
Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?"
If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does,
she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret
is that he has no plan."
With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about
these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get
hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and
in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country
that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further
peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."
Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start
with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about
Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?
In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one
another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern
the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding
in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of
posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
The National Security Void
If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first
use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent
question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign:
the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.
In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to
become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions
such as these:
What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force
consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles?
Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long,
trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles,
and submarines along with an arsenal of
new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories
of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s?
Does the logic of those theories still pertain?
Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions
about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their
knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular
screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What
lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those
lessons apply to future policy?
With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions
will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his
personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her
handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.
When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively
blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency
isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly
for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics
into theater).
I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized
presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the
utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national
security.
What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war?
The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed
to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.
The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties
they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.
Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked
Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term
"first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition
of any premises essential to the question.
For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that
we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and
sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."
Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates.
I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth,
he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign
policy, they totally devoted to open borders.
Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite
the world/invade the world go hand in hand.
"Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. "
Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less
about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised
legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two
presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.
We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use
of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously
or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there
is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous
and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad
or gratuitous outcomes.
Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention
away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported
the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered
countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself
from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous
purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.
Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property
and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow
never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half
of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil
gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain
where necessary as a last resort.
Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives.
But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people.
He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to
intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian
control of speech.
In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other
nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible
(eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful
way.
So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons
have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence
peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect
the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.
So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate
is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as
nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior
knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an
A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers
to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the
candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".
The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to
be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use
evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.
"... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
"... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
"... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
"... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
"... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
"... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
"... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
"... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
"... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
"... So what's a voter to do? ..."
"... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
"... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
"... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
"... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
"... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
"... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
"... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
"... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
"... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
"... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
"... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
"... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
"... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of
substance.
I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict
future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records
on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from
the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His
'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants.
So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'
As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded
himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that
we find the nation in the mess it is in today.
Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity
lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the
Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the
worst. How about you?"
As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions
of power take his message to heart.
The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent
Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the
dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich
and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the
Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element
was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.
That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US
nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first
place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding
a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to
promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its
economic hegemony slips away.
In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result
he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy
debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without
daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism
of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.
The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both
of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal
draft.
I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand
foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens
when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people
lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military,
if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal
history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).
Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid.
Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic
drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within
its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on
to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible
strategic critique.
Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece
criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various
crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article?
At least Eisenhower criticized it.
Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:
My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)
I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than
William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned
experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent
memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some
sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and
most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger
is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our
way of life."
Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize.
But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders
to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of
NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.
*"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion,
and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European
nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).
Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political
complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular
concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing
for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
Commander-in-Chief.
Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has
proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy
on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a
significant number of people from his own party.
But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs.
some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in
a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull
it off.
What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate
to pull the trigger. An illuminating
article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and
reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.
All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest
thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone"
she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly,
as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.
Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within
her political personality, of which she is so proud.
Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak
on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives
her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in
front of the criticism she anticipates.
It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first
6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will
order when she is 'tested', as she expects.
How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief,
Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of
responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between
Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a
threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued
participation in NATO.
These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically
detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly
enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem
has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible
get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?
Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green
and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish
questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework.
Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests
on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it
/ taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told
to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement
for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a
debate.
Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern,
go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad
hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says
too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.
The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have
been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between
other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that
renders Earth unlivable.
The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really
make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.
Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet.
Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 – 1915 Megatons.
I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive
potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of
wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live
on.
And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always
means that he or she is lying.
At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble
with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends,
they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from
prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did
not like.
Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in
the financial corruption of his administration.
The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.
I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the
corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.
His death was widely mourned in the USA.
As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.
If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding
who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement,
perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice,
and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)
Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.
Probably Harding wrote his own..
I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.
All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american
continent ..
and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military
launch their roman candles .
When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.
Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their
POV on what I'm about say.
HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a
position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must
not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled
to "out-macho" the macho guys.
Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions.
Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft
or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)
What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?
The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability
that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for
the Mark I body double is coming?
On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has
the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When
the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding
on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?
And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says
or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember
Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"
"... In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin. ..."
"... You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc. ..."
"... Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies".. ..."
"... There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians. ..."
In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted
media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody
gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah
is finally wearing thin.
You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian"
intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries,
last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc.
Bottom line: taking back Aleppo will be the end of the fake revolution and the architects of
this dirty war know it!!!
These Oil Sheikhs are way too retarded to know wtf they're doing in Yemen and the amount of
sh*t they've gotten themselves into.
You guys evidently haven't understood. This is a war of Sunnis, of Wahhabi style, against the
Shi'a, represented by the Houthis. In which the UAE participates, although not directly threatened.
There've been remarks by Saudi princes about how how they want Shi'a to disappear from the
world, a direct threat of genocide. That is why the war in Yemen.
Why this powerful sentiment? It's quite simple. The population of the Eastern Province of Saudi
Arabia is Shi'a mainly (not quite sure on the figures). It is also the only area of Saudi with
oil. If the Shi'a rebel, it's all over for the revenues of Saudi princes.
A second case is Bahrain. Majority Shi'a population suppressed by Sunni dynasty. Bahraini oil
in danger.
The GCC operates together, though no Shi'a in UAE. That's why Emiratis in Yemen.
' "Someone" gave the Houthis anti-ship missiles ...'
I've been seeing Internet news and rumours that hundreds of Saudi soldiers have been defecting
to the Yemeni side. At the very least they've been going AWOL but one assumes they must be going
somewhere to escape Saudi authorities. Defecting to the Yemenis seems the simplest explanation
and could also explain how the Houthis have been able to acquire sophisticated weapons.
Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different
factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their
Saudi/Turkish "allies"..
The Syrian 5-star opposition had hoped the Americans will invade Syria and get rid of Assad
for them and parachute them into Damascus like the CIA did Hamid Karzai...It'll make for a lovely
comedy script if it wasn't so tragic!!!
Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16 There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and
has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia
bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians.
It's one of two countries that have a land border with Yemen so, I'm guessing it wouldn't be
hard to smuggle weapons across their shared border, i.e., as about as difficult as it is for al
Nusrah or ISIS to smuggle weapons across Syria's border with Turkey.
A friend of a friend works as a nursing practitioner in a military hospital in that country
and all her patients have battlefield wounds even though that country is not at war internally
or externally.
My guess is that it was an Iranian knockoff of the C-802 that flies at 3-5 metres off the sea
during the attack phase at mach 0.9 (~690 mph), so you might not see it given its speed and altitude.
When the missile is launched, the solid rocket propellant booster accelerates the speed of
the missile to Mach 0.9 in a few seconds. After the booster burns out, it detaches from the
missile body and the missile's turbojet engine starts.
This missile is semi-armoured piercing while the boat has an aluminium (alloy) hull and superstructure
so the missile would punch through the skin like a hot knife through butter and explode inside
the ship.
The missile uses a 165 kg semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead which relies on
the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the
ship's interior. The YJ-82 might have a higher single hit probability than the YJ-8/YJ-81..
"... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
"... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
"... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
"... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
"... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
"... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
"... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
"... "inadequate" ..."
"... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
"... "good faith". ..."
"... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
"... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
"... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
"... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
"... "chaos" ..."
"... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
"... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55
Get short URL
Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people
back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose
actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report],"
25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my
arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."
Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members
of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.
Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day
and time "when the missile hit my home."
"I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard
a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard
my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.
That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he
lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.
The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family
of peaceful farmers.
"We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home,"
he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we
have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."
Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders
much worse than Saddam Hussein.
"Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much
worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he
said.
The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led
by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences.
It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.
Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for
the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".
"This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again.
They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to
say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."
"I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that
he will do the same thing again…" he says.
The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated
as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented
with a certainty that was not justified."
Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted
in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.
"Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that
they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can
see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions
of Iraq," Abbas said.
He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.
"There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to
rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see
the country is destroyed," he added.
"... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
"... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
"... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
"... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
"... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
"... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
"... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
"... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
@ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section
of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what
to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)
Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time
choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the
other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood
by all as having the same meaning.
The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much
understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria,
not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number
1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.
The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are
striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands
uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and
moral existence of the known universe.
The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better,
safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue
policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.
Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like
the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most
as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility
and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.
When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity
for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize
the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging
humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.
For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor
who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.
28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)
Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy'
on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been
arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.
The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase
in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services
such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence
of Hillary Clinton and her boss.
All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East
and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state.
That's who you are.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played
in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years
ago.
Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage,
but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating
in Syria and western Iraq.
You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been
the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change
brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed
Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.
The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out
explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian
jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like
Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.
The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to
do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more
death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.
It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.
The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world,
so what's the big deal?
Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
@ 305 Hi Merian.
Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion
(biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans
to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying
Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers
who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary
CBS video for them.
Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.
See what happens.
Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush
project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position
to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting
it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course
Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi
survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either
case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate
that she was a principle architect of either project.
314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."
That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however,
suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary
of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign
policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign
policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation
and execution squarely on you.
HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either,
given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush
and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern)
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order,
who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch,
much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .
JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .
Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided
regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]
stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles
and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's
not quite on board with plans for general war.
LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible
the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs
and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the
US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that.
The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon
and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface
to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the
response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.
I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton
is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive
governance.
I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize
wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative
where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an
Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that
distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern
realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess
of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.
I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics
qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either
Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters
working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the
process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered
by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically)
to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.
Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of
leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of
the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective
and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless
statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery
of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even
while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of
allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.
Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending
with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected
with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive
of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to
politics.
We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic
news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics
of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some
truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)
I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted
calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed
by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton
was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I,
personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans
should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.
I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a
clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but
I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's
candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.
While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry,
apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear
arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to
a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!
The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having
a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year,
saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given
that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent
experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as
a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright
and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more
likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has
enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most
alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process,
which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public
relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor
for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.
In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S.
has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can
advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic.
But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of
b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting
the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you
find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing
your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding
exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of
explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit
away, so it is all good.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
@328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements
in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested
principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record.
Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the
US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.
The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution.
Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN,
or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes
a little weaker.
Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply
the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president
of the US.
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
Rich Puchalsky @ 334
People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they
really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?"
"Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those
opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social
belonging, for better and for worse.
I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One
guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when
someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy
and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic
knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of
the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.
No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can
wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting.
But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.
I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is
designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in
those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically
innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.
I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions
of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully
understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the
neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a
vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.
"... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
"... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
"... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
"... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
"... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
"... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
"... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
"... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
"... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
"... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
"... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
"... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
"... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
"... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
"... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
"... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
"... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
"... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
"... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
"... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
"... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
"... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
"... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
"... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
"... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
"... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
"... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
"... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
"... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
"... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
"... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
"... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
"Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's
simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th
president of the US."
Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in
power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because
this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.
But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation
from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.
And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual
occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic
and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's
valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime,
despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card
of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).
I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria
quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.
IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of
direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the
boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which
are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds
militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.
If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American
feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.
Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance
and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good
cop approach).
I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter
Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter.
(Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
"IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat
of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep
the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups
(which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with
their Kurds militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."
I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy
has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad
situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.
What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the
decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries
had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries,
and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.
But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over?
Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had
war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have
had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.
The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need
Russia and America fighting over power in the region.
"Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this
alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad
cop, good cop approach)."
Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty
good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines
a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper,
since then its all gone reasonably well I think.
Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions.
I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is
how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC
again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.
One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against
that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few
of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.
Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war
agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations.
One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any
important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic
"humanitarian" wars.
So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that
we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have
any meaning outside of an imperial context?
"I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "
Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on
preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence
in xUSSR space.
Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime
change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as
the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda
centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political
establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later
events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political
force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.
The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via
sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama
actually bragged about the latter.
My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including
"resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision
of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal
(and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular"
foreign policy.
Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during
her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to
stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially
taking many functions formerly performed by CIA
I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter
the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using
affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state
(and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller
and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.
It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states
around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy.
Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department
of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in
close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under
Hillary Clinton).
As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this
respect in the future.
So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products
and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political
and military alliance with China might well be their only options.
But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading
role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.
So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.
Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking
into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum
that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming
to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments
produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.
I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain
of salt.
ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed
to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments
that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these
have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'
The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going
well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did
not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were
going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of
them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the
list.
But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:
Cet animal est trčs méchant;
Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
"No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"
Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign
armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to
bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.
Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes
alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then
there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.
But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.
I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until
the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.
Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions."
To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative,
since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely
a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class
figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting:
we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but
since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend
our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know
Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")
There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class
public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read
as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires,
absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain
a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized
ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.
But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that
ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad
but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global
military/economic power struggles.
And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents
of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the
Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives,
they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian
servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll
settle for just calling it bizarre.
bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of
the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.
Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their
boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments
of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining
unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build
Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German
Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.
Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal
principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice.
Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering
abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline
into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing
tool.
ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that
demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.
Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely
the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")
I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.
Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been.
Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad.
He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job
- so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.
Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively.
I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform
agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political
economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will
judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and
he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.
Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more
benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want
to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near
Abroad.
The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent,
that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am
(and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).
In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.
That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early
indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing
that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe
out their barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting
their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food
- has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh
remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone
even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive
holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted
homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping
them down as well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire?
Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for
bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that
we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like
not to have the privilege that they do.
likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
Bruce,
@ 358
"ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy
that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."
As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen
above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft,"
viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating
principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).
It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should
maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).
Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military
posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal
called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).
American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came
about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential
administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).
Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception
(32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990]
(34-36).
Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA
playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into
a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes
to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and
LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited
American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the
mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).
Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control
Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle
led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing
conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response
" (60; 59-63).
This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited
aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced
the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what
they wanted" (66-72).
In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible"
Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82
[but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).
U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this
(albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).
Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy
turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest
in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).
He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain
the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).
Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.
William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules
(109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps,
argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic
and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment,
mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred
serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).
Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored"
(127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's
apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy:
The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite
consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).
By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed
the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge
to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).
stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that
she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the
vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds
that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.
Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism.
He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization
of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist
restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.
Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans
may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing
to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply
think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).
It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of
ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively
defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of
your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't
what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are
actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing,
which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general
and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.
"... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
"... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A
Military History" , April 15, 2016
"America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich,
who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately,
this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust."
The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of
Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book.
I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized
by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls
and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first
challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties
we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable
indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower
to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent
with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was
something I couldn't stomach anymore.
Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were
the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert
One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply
that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable
aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine
calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made
Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.
The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter,
where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously
argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said
aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will)
is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to
chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology,
which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined,
we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.
This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched,
unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names,
locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at
it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that
indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle
East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe
this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple
of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for
all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers
will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the
famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.
"...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's
evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).
"Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists,
interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)
"Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." (367).
He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism
and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter
actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in
considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite
simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting
in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted
in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops
defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city
of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat
is the incident of Abu Ghraib.
He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping,
even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq,
but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis
fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten
about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has
simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.
And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One,
there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means
major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and
organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans
largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that
would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their
barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this
premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And
the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know
that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even
heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes,
and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial
orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as
well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where
did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as
well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't
bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the
privilege that they do.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of
racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of
the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of
preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but
by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship
between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic
British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the
timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular
story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.
That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of
consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered
as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that
there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of
improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise
unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the
end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a
principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have
become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for
them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find
one.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense
of racism and imperialism on many levels…
Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the
ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll
have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't
committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on
board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups.
(It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
I had not heard about this (perhaps an indication of how closely or not I'm following the election
news). If HRC is indeed has some doubts about the wisdom of nuclear 'modernization', that's all to
the good. Mainstream Democratic-leaning think tanks, at least one that I'm aware of, have questioned
the modernization necessity and expense, e.g. in a report co-authored by Lawrence Korb, a former
Reagan admin defense official.
Will refrain from further comment except to say that I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear
'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military
planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general
nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade
the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top
levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
stevenjohnson
10.02.16
at 7:10 pm
One aspect of the upgrade is about improving the feasibility of using tactical
nukes.
"... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing,
and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
@Anarcissie The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French,
Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be
wound down and dissolved, and so they were.
British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars
(Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina)
France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all
outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g.
Kenya ) of its colonies
relatively peacefully.
Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were
blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.
A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:
Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial
powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial
papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in
Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in
this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding
"more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less
than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding
change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing
them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.
[*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp.
128-29.
Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt.
The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose
to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would
be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.
But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its
fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.
As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois
epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and
venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before
they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'
In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them
with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity
and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who
relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now
that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.
"... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
"... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
"... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
"... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
"... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
"... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
"... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
"... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in
Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf
backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and
effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises
about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.
Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either
Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.
stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria
to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a
regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated
leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.
@306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
@316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at
least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"
It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and
Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international
diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either
Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a
figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA
of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more
under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.
It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans
within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable
for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker
skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in
service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally
excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)
Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition,
largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in
the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless
there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence,
and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do
so. Whether he was sincere is moot.
Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct.
Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner
is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.
Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies
active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over
the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent
policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President
sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic
polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on
the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he
more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which
is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed
to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board
with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher
ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation,
emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for
decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.
Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are
voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting
is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…
I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good.
It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.
As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry,"
because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion
of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.
"... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get
the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that
falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think
largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the
corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did
the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin
is just business as usual.
I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back
after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and
honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory)
it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place --
and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
Notable quotes:
"... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
"... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777
and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern
Ukraine .
A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile
that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants
sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.
Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having
traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on
to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.
Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash
The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well
as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.
In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile
system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to
show a panicked militant saying
MH17 was shot down
in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.
He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal
stuff, towels, toilet paper."
Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch
of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks
nearby.
Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing
one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance,
a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed
rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.
The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising
smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."
Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a
report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.
Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by
Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist
fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.
An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including
the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.
"Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly
decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or
without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore,
the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17,"
Bellingcat's report concluded.
"This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to
a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17
from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders:
Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President
Vladimir Putin ."
Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually
dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials
had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.
"To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm
for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable
evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable
information to them."
Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry
using fabricated evidence.
In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer
Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces
were stationed there.
"We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and
moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head
of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.
The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian
authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.
Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands,
Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence
of the investigation".
The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security
Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting
those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.
When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or
faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked
to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.
A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster,
adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down
flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"
Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused
on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's
reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.
During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F.
Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated
SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter
negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin
Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification
of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.
Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the
American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was
a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's
gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.
Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime
to raise tensions with Russia and China.
China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia"
and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.
Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with
US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.
Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended
to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream
from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president
of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable
of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.
Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the
most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible
and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in
Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the
US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.
This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western
world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no
interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according
to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude
far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics,
to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system
was sent back to Russia.
How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?
Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?
It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that
Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt
to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize
Syria and Iran.
In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as
a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars
or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is
going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning
to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a
better future."
But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according
to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's
leaders commitment to strategic stability."
Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that
we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's
buildup upsets "strategic stability."
What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain
the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting
Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently
displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow
the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington
left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.
There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's
goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow
Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington
has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more
opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves
up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.
The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May
Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying
hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."
The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"
The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy
. . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting
the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.
When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?
Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling
the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American
energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives
who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central
Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington
has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying
Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia
is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.
This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination
during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There
are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's
agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are
still functioning.
Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and
emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding
cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.
Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions.
According
to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money,
have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."
This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder
whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda,
because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English,
not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want
to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West
means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's
status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.
To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's
vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their
decision.
To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based
Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for
Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's
strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the
benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."
"Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China.
So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China.
This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington
can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.
Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building
measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia
should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.
One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.
The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute
media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News
organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies
as if they are facts.
Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's
use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.
Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western
media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However,
Zakharova thinks
the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing
internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical
and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by
the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point
of conflict with Russia.
The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds
around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the
rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign
policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on
American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs.
If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.
The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security
complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge
claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of
its hold on US resources.
As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American
people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external
Soviet threat:
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors
in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no
longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in
every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security
complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's
warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.
In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control
of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and
his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."
Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much
money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism."
So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored.
Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to
be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.
Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington
told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.
The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers'
pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the
war but is open to American influence and commerce.
Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands
more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming,
birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.
The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.
This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest
in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in
ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.
Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place
of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington
who are driving the world to Armageddon.
"... I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime. ..."
Jamal Wakeem: I believe that this proves that the US was involved in the Syrian
crisis since its onset and that it was collaborating with the so-called insurgents in order to topple
the Syrian regime. In addition, it proves also that the Syrian crisis had its regional and international
dimension since the beginning and it wasn't a revolution against an illegitimate regime, as the West
claimed at one point.
In addition, I believe that it also proves that the Obama administration
didn't give priority to peaceful and political solution for the Syrian crisis. But it used this as
an alternative to its inability to use force when it was confronted by a steadfast position by Russia
who refused to be dragged into another trick by the US similar to what happened in Libya and topple
the Syrian regime.
I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy
directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block
Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning
of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves
also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime.
"Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"
by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m
" Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that
current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."
Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24,
2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."
"Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"
by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m
" Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that
current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."
Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24,
2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."
"... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
"... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should
be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south
africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.
Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff
salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing
these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the
peace of the grave maybe…)
Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect"
of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable
in less than a decade.
Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:
After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's
place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad,
attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle
East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took
a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.
"You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers,
that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia,
and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness
on the world stage."
"Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't
be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be
paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten
our allies."
Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential
debate.
NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary
campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
President
Vladimir Putin is fast turning
Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international
law. Yet, his behavior in
Ukraine and
Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common
human decency.
This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands
concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that
shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent
from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria,
Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part
of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some
500,000 Syrian lives.
In recent years, Russia and the United States have started
rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting the world
on the threshold of a dangerous new arms race. But we don't
have to repeat the perilous drama of the 20th century. We can
maintain our country's strength and security and still do
away with the worst of the Cold War weapons.
The American plan to rebuild and maintain our nuclear
force is needlessly oversize and expensive, expected to cost
about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This would
crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge
of our conventional forces and to build the capacities needed
to deal with terrorism and cyberattacks.
The good news is that the United States can downsize its
plans, save tens of billions of dollars, and still maintain a
robust nuclear arsenal.
First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out
its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the
ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn't only
budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the
most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger
an accidental nuclear war.
If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route
to the United States, the president would have to consider
launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them;
once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The
president would have less than 30 minutes to make that
terrible decision.
This is not an academic concern. While the probability of
an accidental launch is low, human and machine errors do
occur. I experienced a false alarm nearly 40 years ago, when
I was under secretary of defense for research and
engineering. I was awakened in the middle of the night and
told that some Defense Department computers were showing 200
ICBMs on the way from the Soviet Union. For one horrifying
moment I thought it was the end of civilization. Then the
general on the phone explained that it was a false alarm. He
was calling to see if I could help him determine what had
gone wrong with the computer.
During the Cold War, the United States relied on ICBMs
because they provided accuracy that was not then achievable
by submarine-launched missiles or bombers. They also provided
an insurance policy in case America's nuclear submarine force
was disabled. That's not necessary anymore. Today, the United
States' submarine and bomber forces are highly accurate, and
we have enough confidence in their security that we do not
need an additional insurance policy - especially one that is
so expensive and open to error.
As part of the updates to America's nuclear arsenal, the
government is also planning to replace nuclear-armed
submarines and bombers. If we assume that the Defense
Department is critically analyzing the number of systems
needed, this makes far more sense than replacing ICBMs. The
submarine force alone is sufficient to deter our enemies and
will be for the foreseeable future. But as technology
advances, we have to recognize the possibility of new threats
to submarines, especially cyberattack and detection by swarms
of drones. The new submarine program should put a special
emphasis on improvements to deal with these potential
threats, assuring the survivability of the fleet for decades
to come.
The new stealth bomber will provide a backup to
submarines. This is not likely to be necessary, but the
bomber force is a good insurance policy. The new bomber would
be capable of carrying out either conventional or nuclear
missions. But the development of new air-launched nuclear
cruise missiles, which has been proposed, is unnecessary and
destabilizing. We can maintain an effective bomber force
without a nuclear cruise missile.
Instead of overinvesting in nuclear weapons and
encouraging a new arms race, the United States should build
only the levels needed for deterrence. We should encourage
Russia to do the same. But even if it does not, our levels of
nuclear forces should be determined by what we actually need,
not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for
missile. If Russia decides to build more than it needs, its
economy will suffer, just as during the Cold War. ...
(William J. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to
1997.)
"... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
"... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
"... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
"... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
"... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
"... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
"... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
"... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
"... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
"... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
"... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
"... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
One has to wonder just how much longer the American
people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in
theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking
in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic
prosperity.
Recent headlines have captured the character of this
failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for
Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released
finding
s that
"corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very
beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address
the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by
systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."
Earlier this month, a British
Parliament study
found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic
collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises,
widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region
and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."
Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:
Turned a previously whole
and regionally impotent Iraq that balanced Iran into a factory of terrorism and a client
of Tehran;
Turned Afghanistan from a
country with a two-sided civil war-contained within its own borders-into a dysfunctional
state that serves as a magnet for terrorists.
Turned a Libya that suffered
internal unrest, but didn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists, into an
"unmitigated failure" featuring a raging civil war, serving as an African beachhead for
ISIS and a terrorist breeding ground;
Contributed to the expansion
of al-Qaeda into a "franchise" group, spawned a new strain when ISIS was born out of the
vacuum created by our Iraq invasion, and seen major terrorist threats explode worldwide;
Joined other nations in
battles in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other areas within Africa whose only result has
been the expansion of the threat and the deepening of the suffering of the civil
populations.
These continued and deepening failures kill unknown
numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the
hatred many have of America
,
and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another,
less obvious but more troubling cost.
Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of
the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing
runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15
years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the
lifespan
of each
aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and
depleting stocks of bombs
and missiles.
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of
miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and
worn out countless weapons
.
The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the
Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only
have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the
expense of conventional military training.
This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has
recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the
training time to high-end
conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the
strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation
Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level
have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.
As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare
and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional
war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.
Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern
adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense
capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking
insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.
It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror
group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a
conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.
It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress,
and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power
against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests,
and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these
relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been
responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has
weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.
If the incoming administration does not recognize this
deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day
be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won
easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We
will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic
military failure. I pray it is the former.
Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and
military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant
colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in
his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and
Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).
"... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
"... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
"... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
"... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
"... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
"... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
"... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
"... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
"... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
"... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
"... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
"... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
"... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
"... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
"... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
"... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
"... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
"... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
"... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
"... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
"... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
"... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
"... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
"... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
"... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
"... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
"... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
"... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
"... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
"... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
"... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
"... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
"... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
"... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
"... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
"... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
"... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
"... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
"... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
"... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
"... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
"... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
"... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
"... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
"... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
"... any of the suspects ..."
"... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
"... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
"... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at Dances
with Bears
You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic
criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The
first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened
amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of
police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They
have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down
and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014,
and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.
The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK
missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on
the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements
of intention, causation, and culpability:
the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle
at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
the warhead detonated;
the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft
engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.
On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor,
one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they
provided the world's press, read
this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the
Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their
proof of what could not have happened.
Click to watch
.
The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen,
the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the
BUK missile] was not there."
Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between
the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering
these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond
reasonable doubt.
Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two
targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within
firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?
What evidence
is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been
involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military
source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle
is not very large for target interception."
Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.
Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer
Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's
shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the
shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015,
20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes
BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES
DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL
The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping
this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the
angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's
approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft
panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the
missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.
According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled
from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape.
How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve
months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew
and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?
According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations
of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile
detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered.
Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average
concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration
of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.
The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it
was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the
only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew
parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.
"The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way
to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0
-- minute 20:51.
Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the
warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must
have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.
So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen,
along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why
does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane
flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard
engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has
the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?
A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.
KEY Red line - MH 17. Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei
version.
Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html
Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there
is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites
there is all the difference in the world
What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive
conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic
was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.
It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident
to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large
they could not be dissimulated.
The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:
1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed
upon);
2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition
highly likely given the evidence);
3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist
groups abruptly cancelled);
4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an
Al-Nusra false flag action);
5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);
Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without
ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .
We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.
Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented
by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this
time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why
all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd
represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and
their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.
There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets
or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu
in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.
Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in
Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking
somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than
showing that some major crime is a complete invention.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past
centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a
meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.
Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S.
and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability
through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared
from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.
That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information
that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.
Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the
original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?
I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical
self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or
simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up
with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie
even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason
not to. Am I missing something?
We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports,
politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of
the '80s, but the 50/60s.
And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever
official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down
in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way
to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets.
DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether
by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the
mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.
Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American
media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:
Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement
& Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary
are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label,
they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".
So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin
Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the
US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.
It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece
on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the
familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid
the Times is trying very hard to propagate.
The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff
up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.
Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so
Ukrainian
jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.
As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at
you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking,
and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative
immediately suspect.
And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything
about airplanes shot that one full of holes.
But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian
controlled territory
If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war
with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers?
All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting
at.
Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull
it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating
prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………
A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane,
who subsequently were made to "disappear"?
more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade
intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators
and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with
russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs
clinton takes over the white house.
Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes
at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of
the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters
separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding
that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all,
how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers
need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.
This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous.
I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point
of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov
actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken
down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being
driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians
did it.
Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past
three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid
and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons,
whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's
a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who
need to look at which side of it they're standing on.
The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly
be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers.
Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one
way or another.
In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even
there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts
of interests.
I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral
third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the
neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many
candidates left.
Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used
by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?
Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally
shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.
I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK
systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide
the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older
variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.
Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field
of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so
they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck
is that?
Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some
two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.
The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active
at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence"
has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists
never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over
the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.
Thank you!
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.
He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics.
A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour,
would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking
in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).
And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically
designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the
audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside.
But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."
Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops
and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The
Iraqi's
where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it
was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.
In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The
sanctions
Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five.
When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
responded,
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."
The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are
now arming
in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of
mass
destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this
butchery.
Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major
target
of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops
so that they
could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River
project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population.
The water
crisis created continues to this day.
The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion.
I will only
mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show
that it
was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".
This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime
change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From
the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula
that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or
not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014,
they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.
As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT
also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information,
you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful
idiot" more lightly.
The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so
I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the
shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane
and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone
knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps
the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.
So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested
in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the
suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is
more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit
of the doubt to the Dutch.
But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch
And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch
admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this
matter.
Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason
BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training
for its crew to become truly proficient with it.
There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:
1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.
2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted
from Ukrainian reserves.
3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.
There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be
the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did
it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).
The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all
evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia
did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters
is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame
the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark
Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because
the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.
BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training
for its crew to become truly proficient with it.
Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication.
That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is
at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several
targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded
manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.
My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than
fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators
who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was
a commercial airliners.
Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war
The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time.
There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did
it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto
power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.
Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt
it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?
The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once
and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always
been skeptical.
A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated
training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.
(a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17
downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of
the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars
monitoring the battlefield…
(b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back
to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible.
No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion
can strike in a matter of weeks.
(c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice
targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.
(d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the
wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in
time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios
recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.
Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.
4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit
the ground.
5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning
and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.
A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply
crime scene logic:
MOTIVE:
Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result
of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the
separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.
On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a
false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing
so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.
MEANS:
If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first
seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and
launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch
site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated
spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.
OPPORTUNITY:
The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner
far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without
this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and
coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an
Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist
with logistics?
Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.
Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.
Now then, the facts in this case are:
the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!
Cause of death:
Four bullets in the chest. Fact!
The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!
Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!
The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind
you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!
Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
[snaps his pointing stick]
Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have
testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.
And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the
members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.
Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?
Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.
Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?
Clouseau: Instinct!
Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…
Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.
Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.
You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface
in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence
strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.
The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless
good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.
Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several
chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very
beginning" hypothesis:
1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?
2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy.
To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working
in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?
3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military
airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.
4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those
records were never presented to international investigation commission.
5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to
classify the results of investigation ?
6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling
of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.
7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?
8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications
(unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together
to implicate rebels)
9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane
disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign
10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly
shoot down MH17.
11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.
Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament
present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.
Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars
day in and day out….
Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing
mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable
aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading
to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude
earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields.
This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember
the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first
deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't
make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind
by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause
a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.
(i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it
wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them.
120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought
to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR
for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.
(ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach
its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the
aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects
the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter
of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out
– which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react.
So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.
(iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel
to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range
' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given
the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been
on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for
the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured
for quite a while.
And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated.
But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that
(i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch
was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different
images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.
This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious
problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated
area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed
launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile
launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes
or more before dissipating.
But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located
"via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent
on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.
Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military
aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military,
no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.
As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so
it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for
them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high
altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier
plane, why not a later plane ?
Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness
reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is
quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually
noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it
kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist –
link
You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for
your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following
the photos and witness reports.
The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic
controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another
aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead
of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have
been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.
As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to
shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of
MH17).
While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence"
as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.
Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your
supreme confidence is very suspect.
I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth.
You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting
"separatists did it" evidence.
BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it
can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting
a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.
And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they
got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact
by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction
of "false flag".
Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did
it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional
government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy
) .
BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much
of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area
to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.
Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a
propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…
Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were
never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.
Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy,
I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk
air traffic controllers for this day?
The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address
questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO)
intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down.
A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered
anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17
at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not
the rebels.
Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened
just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian
three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.
"... In both of these cases, there are no good guys. In both of these cases, the West's support for the rebels, in addition to being illegal under international law, can be expected not to prevent massacres, but simply to determine who gets to massacre whom. ..."
"... The real objective is, of course, to make sure that a hostile or disobedient regime is toppled ..."
"... On FP and subservience to international capital, one may want to consider the handling of Haiti after the earthquake (google Haiti and neoliberalism), US relations with the most recent wave of leftist governments in Latin America, where no geopolitical threat from a great power is present (note especially Honduras), and what the US has been pushing for in the TTIP. If it's possible to pursue a pro-labour, anti-corporate, anti-oligarchic, pro-public US foreign policy, the fact remains that it somehow never seems to happen. ..."
"... This kind of expedience, heedless of strategy, precedent or consequence, is now a standard part of American foreign policy. The U.S. concocts a R2P rationale suited to the moment, without respect to either the truth or a deliberate appreciation of goals and consequences. I cannot help but think it is part of the same uncritical, self-righteous amoralism that attaches the U.S. to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies ..."
On Libya: it's disputed whether Qaddafi was really going to commit massacres and to what extent
he was going to commit human rights abuses (see the UK Parliament report for sceptical opinions
expressed by experts); what is clear is that the Libyan rebels have likewise committed massacres
and human rights abuses, in addition to the formerly prosperous country's plunging into chaos
and protracted civil war (with the predictable humanitarian consequences).
On Syria: all sides have committed massacres and human rights abuses, and whichever side wins
is virtually guaranteed to commit further human rights abuses. The reason there is a protracted
civil war, with all the predictable humanitarian consequences, is that the rebel side has been
receiving outside support from US allies (and the government side has been receiving outside support
from Iran and Russia, without which it most likely would have been defeated).
In both of these cases, there are no good guys. In both of these cases, the West's support
for the rebels, in addition to being illegal under international law, can be expected not to prevent
massacres, but simply to determine who gets to massacre whom.
The real objective is, of course, to make sure that a hostile or disobedient regime is
toppled (cf. the indifference to abuses by, say, the Saudis). Certainly, all internal or
external actors responsible for war crimes should be indicted and, when/if possible, tried by
an international court, but that doesn't mean that in the meantime the US or its allies have the
right, let alone the moral obligation to invade other countries and to effect regime change at
their own discretion.
On FP and subservience to international capital, one may want to consider the handling
of Haiti after the earthquake (google Haiti and neoliberalism), US relations with the most recent
wave of leftist governments in Latin America, where no geopolitical threat from a great power
is present (note especially Honduras), and what the US has been pushing for in the TTIP. If it's
possible to pursue a pro-labour, anti-corporate, anti-oligarchic, pro-public US foreign policy,
the fact remains that it somehow never seems to happen.
This kind of expedience, heedless of strategy, precedent or consequence, is now a standard
part of American foreign policy. The U.S. concocts a R2P rationale suited to the moment, without
respect to either the truth or a deliberate appreciation of goals and consequences. I cannot help
but think it is part of the same uncritical, self-righteous amoralism that attaches the U.S. to
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies .
"... "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM? ..."
"... I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese. ..."
"... Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid. ..."
"... All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one. ..."
"... Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama. ..."
"... "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge –
the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid
and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed
or mentioned by MSM?
I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power
to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed
under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism
or those dastardly Russians and Chinese.
Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it
that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do
their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they
have done something outrageously stupid.
All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in
part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the
store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the
way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes
from day one.
Obama's lack of control extends far beyond having an independent military and military grade
spy network. He couldn't even protect his buds living in the house of Saud from mean ole lawsuits.
It was clear the veto wouldn't stand but that Obama Foundation isn't going to build itself. Taking
one for "Team Elite".
Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason.
This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with
his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could
then be attributed to her, not Obama.
Perhaps he fight for the TPP in the lame duck session just well enough to avoid having it on
his record.
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly
what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which
is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
The latter is the city in question. Here's the Daily Beast not disputing the text (though for far different reasons):
"... Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze? ..."
Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue
then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.
While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their
own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even
if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process
the details online.
All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store
overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners
are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.
Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where,
and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day?
Or too many bottles of booze?
Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps
will be more precise and less optional.
"... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
"... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
"... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
"... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
"As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it
did not."
Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted
after by the Saudis and GCC.
That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists
did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.
While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing
the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.
ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm
"Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other
guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."
Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.
"... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
"... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most
important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with
all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies
of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war
and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for
his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and
with all nations.
No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously
as this essay does.
But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked
the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries
as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies"
should sound an alarm.
No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though
he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized
ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility"
seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.
I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There
has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since
Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson
of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again
for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
"... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home
nations.
"We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities,"
Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.
In February, Germany
accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed
asylum applicants.
"It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan
and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back
to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW
reports .
Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan
route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and
"invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.
The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently
surged in the polls, even
overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown.
The CDU also had their worst election
result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.
"... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
"... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
"... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
"... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
"... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
"... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
"... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
"... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
"... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
"... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
"... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
"... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
"... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
"... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
"... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
"... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
"... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
"... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage.
(Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):
Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.
If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers,
as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria.
Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the
recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism,
right?
Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now
she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.
Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC
who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.
Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors.
Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job
well.
Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and
Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.
Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist)
pushed war clandestinely?
Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign
policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe
might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.
as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."
Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that
Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational
quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a
large May Day rally.
At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists
who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent
report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.
As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially
a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has
the same general source.
I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the
former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated
by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and
de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members
of the 'stay behind' organizations (see
Operation Gladio
), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern
AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs
of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and
racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and
anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised
populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.
On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably
well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization.
That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should
not be particularly shocking.
No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also
wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany.
Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.
The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world
due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as
the destructive force that it truly is.
The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses
away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will
use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can
movement be made.
The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means
of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy
for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the
beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.
Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been
a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in
the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion.
Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left
has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with
their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion,
in essence, is a military force.
The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and
die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will
continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.
Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition.
Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians
for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided
to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own
agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their
agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running
the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.
Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is
a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off
in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing
so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions
was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US,
and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.
In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around
a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never
ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic
groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented,
all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted
hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country
that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has
been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over
that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a
racist, rogue state.
" AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's
built basically on racism."
Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….
Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will
be yours.
If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy
their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years.
The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.
And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many
in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees.
It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those
who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility
for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently
is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from
places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying
that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought
it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for
her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of
German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve
the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.
In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years.
Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".
It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling
the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.
Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had
to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town
until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large,
that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.
spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems".
The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD
has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic
collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German
transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment.
Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You
might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with
its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing
access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard
to account for German fear.
The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters
with very real fears.
FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist
ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic
party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative
competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet
socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the
American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.
His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be
so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.
"Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."
That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots
of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees
in the first place.
Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply
been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the
US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to
the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and
Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion
in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant
confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its
population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly
China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.
I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees,
etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps
not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European
states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.
In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel
to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a
coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages
in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally
brilliant idea.
can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?
Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany
because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats
while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.
in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf
mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab,
hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge
eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte
Größe fest angestellt zu haben.
Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.
But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers
yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.
The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic
bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+
years before.
Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish
capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic
banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the
Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant
reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking
it into old England.
1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian
dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these
refugees.
2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the
UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US
is responsible for these refugees.
3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments
and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.
4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea.
I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.
So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we
then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the
US as responsible?
I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results
are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the
Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations
derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever,
the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and
refugees would have headed for Europe.
Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if
not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.
The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria
By Pepe Escobar
September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings
between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning
in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected
by US jihad proxies.
Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake'
in Deir Ezzor.
The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.
As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps,
originally):
"THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN
SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION
WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF
THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".
The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds
of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the
State Department.
It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between
established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka
the Islamic State.
It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald
Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State
– remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient
US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).
It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means
to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established
by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake"
is just a pesky detail.
It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and
directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire
of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.
No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance,
the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere
does not disappoint.
The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.
Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit
up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do
you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate
Syrian rebels" is about?
"the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets
its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their
big call."
Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how
she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.
Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be
over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.
It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone
and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S
The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash
Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.
Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the
rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.
It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to
embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport
in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth
to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon"
but I could see she was shaken.
"... Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor. ..."
"... The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. ..."
"... In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May? ..."
Re the Oilprice link (
The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts
the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a
Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.
That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for
Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to
form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.
Gareth Porter says that instead
The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to
overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent
war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US
military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama
White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the
US military posture in the region[….]
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination
to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of
participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality
will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war
system itself.
In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with
"accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies
of Seven Days in May?
Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for our
Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel and the
Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic aim
of the friends of Israel.
Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting
the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy
pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have a WW2
military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.
We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out
wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last
about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince
itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that
a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that
a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.
Or, to sum up
What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?
The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very existence.
It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up doing us more
long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes. You can rebuild
cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.
Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite
dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple fact
that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose with
a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something
up with which we could not put.
"... "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!" ..."
"... You mean there are Kurds in their Way? ..."
"... Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it. ..."
"Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights!
Human rights! Please stop bombing!"
Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have
a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but
that's it.
I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the
US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was.
Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected
Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever
was - and not a whole lot smarter.
Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium
dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black
sites.
Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.
He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait
to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous
and murderous legacy.
Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct.
The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops
to ISIL.
That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it
ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups
in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system
and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that
Bush never did.
Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into
disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.'
Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries
throughout MENA.
Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars,
and that's just what he's delivered.
The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation
to ensure the USA bomb
Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.
Each US leader will experiment with the
possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows
how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
by these sociopathic murderers.
Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps
it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a
thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.
We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just
this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.
Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.
Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse
it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for
what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch
as commander-in-chief.
Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
violated and abused the trust of leaders and
the public in many nations by misinforming,
lying, and manipulative means to bomb
a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which
every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for
the next generation at minimum.
'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted
as war criminals.
This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing
politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of
democracy could never be clearer.
Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle
East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around
hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.
Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene
mass killing abroad.
They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under
George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic
financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.
The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct
the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities
of money printed to keep the economy afloat.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy
who never did anything on his own.
He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things
for him.
His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that
Bush never be president.
But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men
like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.
The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure
can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.
The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the
public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their
laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until
recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the
black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between
the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
"W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza
Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long
as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners,
and kiss the asses of the 1%.
Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled
belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence
frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say
she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making
me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that
the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies
) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces
the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes.
Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this
dictats.
If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone
they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than
him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert
Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective
campaign against Trump!
I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many
Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under
Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever
since.
Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.
Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue
he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week
- go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.
Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign?
Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.
It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a
riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first
President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama.
Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems
is just noise.
The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution
of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them
be truly trusted
Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing
perceptions.
Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job,
and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend
of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen
coronation.
Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party
system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?
US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues
It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The
new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing
genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and
millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the
US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the
protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.
US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013
Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil
war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech.
You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking
the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but
fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before
the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:
"...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our
territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project
is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.
The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded
to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise,
briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social
networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well
as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization
of the population triggering infighting.
American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize
protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart
of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!
Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences
misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of
interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in
accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue
an investigation of this case."
Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has
asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the
Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference
in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the
impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He
could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev
had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.
Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were
innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a
dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians
they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown
territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many
who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan
war.
The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed
but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was
drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not
fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands
of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama,
Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will
suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.
The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead
soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses
on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are
returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.
Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer
in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:
"To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"
That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do
in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.
Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine
as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court
jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies
about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media
goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing
a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the
truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true
liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe
anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US
program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience
in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine
with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was
seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so
kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine
government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis
on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.
It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although
the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted
to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame
is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.
Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also
to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering
colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting
against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America
has forgotten its meaning.
Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle
Donetsk is nearly complete!
This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding
behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.
Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built?
After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet,
which clearly outline the front line?
First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme
is not solid and dotted line .
Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.
Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre
marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional.
On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland.
And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver,
and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor
that will help determine the subsequent course of events.
1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly
discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.
But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the
Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.
Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will
be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we
came to this conclusion.
One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in
the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years
1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also
called the control zone - fronts.
As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the
front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved
its effectiveness.
The Spanish Civil War
Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability
to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries
in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and
culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.
Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General
staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the
plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.
General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the
environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial
law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of
Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop
private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!
Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate
groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the
fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed
groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems
with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.
Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents,
getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of
support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative,
the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if
necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good
in its season!
US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues
It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The
new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing
genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and
millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the
US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the
protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.
US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013
Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil
war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech.
You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking
the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but
fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before
the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:
"...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our
territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project
is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.
The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded
to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise,
briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social
networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well
as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization
of the population triggering infighting.
American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize
protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart
of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!
Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences
misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of
interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in
accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue
an investigation of this case."
Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has
asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the
Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference
in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the
impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He
could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev
had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.
Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were
innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a
dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians
they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown
territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many
who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan
war.
The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed
but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was
drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not
fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands
of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama,
Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will
suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.
The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead
soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses
on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are
returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.
Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer
in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:
"To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"
That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do
in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.
Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine
as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court
jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies
about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media
goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing
a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the
truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true
liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe
anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US
program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience
in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine
with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was
seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so
kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine
government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis
on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.
It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although
the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted
to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame
is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.
Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also
to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering
colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting
against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America
has forgotten its meaning.
"... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
"... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
"... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
"... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
"... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
"... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
"... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
"... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
"... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes
Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused
on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets
commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid
parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to
her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing,
ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made
her mad.
Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly
realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and
still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come
up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "
Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these
as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world
absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with
me as we go.
Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the
Oval Office pledging to
work toward
"a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say
stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will
reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same."
That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in
the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!
Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called
for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired
fewer weapons
in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now
presiding over the early stages of a
trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes,
of course, before the
inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes
full-scale work
on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option.
Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the
U.S. is proudly
pioneering .
And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught
my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its
headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such
a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to
initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running
practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president
has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry
will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act
that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.
You must be kidding!
Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration
launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact,
it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed,
al-Qaeda put to flight, and that
was that , or so it then seemed.
On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post
reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs
on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen,
and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to
the
drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these
years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the
time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in
Iraq and Syria which are
loosing close to
25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution
of the longest war in our history, the president who
announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again
deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the
U.S. Air Force . For that,
B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in
Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking
about "
generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.
Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long
remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise
a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent
global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond
official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty
throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his
colleagues decide needs to die,
American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be
in the vicinity ). With its
White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical"
hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized
in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but
assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination,
previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way
of war that only seems to spread conflict further.
You must be kidding!
The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the
New York Times
reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It
has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel
have only grown, including post-traumatic
stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air
Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service
has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning
to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries
and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around,
the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain
on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see
just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay
for it.
You must be kidding!
Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center
for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a
stunning
figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he
wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia
in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi
military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small
arms to tanks, combat aircraft,
cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to
slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).
Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its
near monopoly on the
global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will
dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of,
especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously
help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less
for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling
$38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade,
the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle
East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)
Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the
classic revolver
that "won the West."
I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba
has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey,
we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates
everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned
the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could
have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual
citizens, not so much by their leaders.
President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages
led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather
play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility
for their part in destroying human civilization.
"Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."
The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could
have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.
Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most
still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new
face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is
coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his
mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things
political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous
scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public
while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.
And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?
These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you
- it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election
with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump
is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump
is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and
Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native,
tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy +
how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.
America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.
It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which
underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.
Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions
upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the
humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who
for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.
The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives
on their specializations.
And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked"
at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.
Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden"
-- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?
Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout
as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists
that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist
Congress and right-wing media is false.
We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic
member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the
President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an
American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government
tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.
When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary
Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years
this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist
them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
Stein 2016!
Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same
reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.
Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton
just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.
The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to
slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling
weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.
Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight
years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their
universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to
say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war
protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies
in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come
into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.
Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does
it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there
appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that
the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed,
in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to
$10.)
Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money
for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years
can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown
in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.
Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been
dancing to their tune ever since.
Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli
warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates,
etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.
This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her
phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the
most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.
If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.
The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her
war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire
building.
"Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the
people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary,
whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.
The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness)
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
*****************
The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:
"The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles
an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world.
It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the
money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.
"The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually
harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap
Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton
connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers
with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But
then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.
Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that.
He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern
like Bush won 2 more terms.
The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with
a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.
If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse
left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even
more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.
What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages
of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they
think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have
been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is
a dismal failure.
The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said.
Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the
rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.
And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes,
I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right
there by the road.
Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added
more.
And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign,
to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support
for the right wing agenda.
Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs
to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around,
don't ask questions, don't think.
She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people
that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now
she's being rewarded. SMH.
Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past
the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to
show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear
weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone
assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last
7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil
rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
Mother Agnes Mariam
, a nominee for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize from Homs diocese, has some harsh
words
for the US war against Syria
: "Shame on a coalition who pretends fighting ISIS while in reality is helping ISIS killing innocent
soldiers whose mission is to protect civilians."
This is in response to the September 17 US airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor that massacred 62 Syrian
soldiers and injured 100 more who have been fighting ISIS.
[1] According to a June 2015
Time magazine
article, Deir ez-Zor with a population of 228,000 has been under
siege by ISIS
the past years, relying on the nightly arrival of a large Syrian air-force-operated cargo plane which
has a payload of more than 46 tons and transports munitions, food and medical supplies.
Starving babies in Deir ez-Zor
This much needed aid is flown out from the military air base southeast of the city, the target
of ISIS the past years and now bombed by US jet fighters. During the bombing, ISIS launched a simultaneous
attack and threatened to overrun the air base as well as slaughter the over 200,000 civilians. Deir
ez-Zor is also home to a large
Christian population protected by the Syrian government, similar to most other Christian inhabited
cities that are in government-controlled areas along the coast.
Map of Christian population in Syria
However, the Syrian army was able to repel the ISIS offensive and recover lost territory after
the US "mistaken" attacks, but the incident has again left many wondering whether US goal is really
to counter terrorism or to conduct
regime change
in Syria.
Meanwhile, the Syrian people continue to face prolonged agony and suffering as regional and great
powers use them as pawns for their geopolitical ambitions.
E
dward Dark , an activist in
Aleppo , noted back in 2013 that Syrians watched how their peaceful revolution was hijacked by
Turkey/Saudi and other Arab Gulf states, pouring in Salafists from over
100 countries
that morphed into ISIS, Al Nusra, and others that care nothing for the norms of human rights,
democracy, or justice for the Syrian nation. He admitted, "People here don't like the regime, but
they hate the rebels even more."
Now Dark sees Syria's only salvation is through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence,
but lamented "that is not a view shared by the warmongers and power brokers who still think that
more Syrian blood should be spilled to appease the insatiable appetites of their sordid aspirations."
A girl helping her dad with his shoe
Just as King Solomon determined the true mother of the baby is the one who refused to split her
son in half, the champion of the Syrian people and human rights is the power that would place the
Syrians' welfare above its own selfish ambitions.
Nonetheless, Dark lamented that "Whatever is left of Syria at the end will be carved out between
the wolves and vultures that fought over its bleeding and dying corpse, leaving us, the Syrian people
to pick up the shattered pieces of our nation and our futures."
Indeed, it seems US and its Salafist allies are bent on splitting the Syrian baby and cleansing
it of ethnic and religious minorities with a Taliban-like regime and Shaira Law, and Deir ez-Zor
is likely condemned to suffer the similar fate of Homs.
In Homs, the pre-conflict population was more than 1 million people of mostly Sunni Muslims with
substantial Christian and Alawite communities. Peter Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent
at Politico , in August 2015 tweeted an
extract from a 2008 Lonely Planet travel guide of Homs.
"These days, its Christian neighborhood is one of Syria's most welcoming and relaxed, and Homs'
citizens are some of the country's friendliest…That, combined with the city's myriad leafy parks
and gardens, sprawling al fresco coffee shop, outdoor corn-on-the-cob stands and restored souq where
artisans still work, make Homs a wonderful place to kick back for a couple of days."
In eight years, Homs has changed from a "wonderful place" to a ruinous heap. With the ceasefire
likely to break down as Salafist rebels rearm and regroup, US and Saudi/Qatar/Turkey are well on
the march towards turning Syria into another Afghanistan in the Mediterranean.
[1] Nancy A. Youssef, "Did the U.S. Just Slaughter Syrian Troops?
The Daily Beast , September 18, 2016.
Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations
at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations,
and a research consultant for Jane's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence
Centre at IHS Jane's.
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
As I've stated many times, Obama the
narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping
about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral
contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the
mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to
hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic
supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted
ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends
more Global Cop wreckage.
"... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over Ł160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
"... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
"... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
"... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's
role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need
to be vigilant against all warmongers.
It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop
at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report
were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of
what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.
There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going
to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families
of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the
report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take
a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove
through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that
the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK
military action were far from satisfactory."
As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory'
is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable
force."
Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair
to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the
public purse. They have raised over Ł160,000 to date so the story is not yet
over.
Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot
Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that
day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press
conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central
to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing
for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.
The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the
establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq
despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions.
The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in
February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had
already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".
The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of
Iraq and region, is staggering.
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
Kirby declined to answer
whether Israel should face the
same treatment
as Iran and North Korea – both
of which have been sanctioned
for alleged
or actual violations of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
"... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
"... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
"... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
"... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
"... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
Ben Denison
criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:
When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are
quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration
for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the
continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate
how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This
impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency
of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed
analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are
bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.
The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency
and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more
serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This
not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed
U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts
of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government
has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power
in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something
that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced
priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the
idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that
there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we
simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems
around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.
When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then
brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's
"failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support
and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow
of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a
neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the
intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict.
Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision
not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the
crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to
fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also
has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action
others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't
do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people
all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness
on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things
that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own
government's agency when it suits them.
"At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many
of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S.
has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's
agency when it suits them."
It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success
or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report
by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.
Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from
consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched
thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.
Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered
knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow
down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we
simply don't know.
It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism".
The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to
save the world, again and again.
Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere
in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once
you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have
a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never
be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism.
Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just
and pure and right.
It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into
other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate
us to their ends.
"one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us
and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government
does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion
about how people all around the world behave."
It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and
intervening.
We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.
The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general
level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and
other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt,
half-educated hacks and incompetents.
(arstechnica.com)
23
Posted
by manishs
on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @02:00PM
from the
security-woes
dept.
Sean Gallagher, writing for ArsTechnica:
Another
major site breach from four years ago has
resurfaced. Today, LeakedSource revealed that it had
received a copy of a February 2012 dump of the user
database of Rambler.ru
, a Russian search, news,
and e-mail portal site that closely mirrors the
functionality of Yahoo. The dump included usernames,
passwords, and ICQ instant messaging accounts for
over 98 million users. And while previous breaches
uncovered by LeakedSource this year had at least
some encryption of passwords, the Rambler.ru
database stored user passwords in plain text --
meaning that whoever breached the database instantly
had access to the e-mail accounts of all of
Rambler.ru's users. The breach is the latest in a
series of "mega-breaches" that LeakedSource says it
is processing for release. Rambler isn't the only
Russian site that has been caught storing
unencrpyted passwords by hackers. In June, a hacker
offered for sale the entire user database of the
Russian-language social networking site VK.com
(formerly VKontakte) from a breach that took place
in late 2012 or early 2013; that database also
included unencrypted user passwords, as ZDNet's Zach
Whittaker reported.
(theintercept.com)
94
Posted
by manishs
on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:00PM
from the
truth-is-out-there
dept.
The Intercept has today published
200-page documents revealing details about Harris
Corp's Stingray surveillance device
, which has
been one of the closely guarded secrets in law
enforcement for more than 15 years. The firm, in
collaboration with police clients across the U.S.
have "fought" to keep information about the mobile
phone-monitoring boxes from the public against which
they are used. The publication reports that the
surveillance equipment carries a price tag in the
"low six figures." From the report:
The San
Bernardino Sheriff's Department alone has snooped
via Stingray, sans warrant, over 300 times. Richard
Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International,
told The Intercept that the "manuals released today
offer the
most up-to-date view on the operation of
"
Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices,
with powerful capabilities that threaten civil
liberties, communications infrastructure, and
potentially national security. He noted that the
documents show the "Stingray II" device can
impersonate four cellular communications towers at
once, monitoring up to four cellular provider
networks simultaneously, and with an add-on can
operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks
simultaneously.
"Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal
investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal
charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2007-2008 financial
crisis" [International Business Times]. Why now? Liz edging her hat
toward the ring if Clinton comes up lame?
I can see two possible interpretations for this.
First, as much as I hate to draw the analogy, she could be positioning
herself to take the reigns after a loss in the way that Richard Nixon, Paul
Ryan, and later Bill Clinton did. Richard Nixon sat back and concentrated
on building up credibility as Barry Goldwater melted down and then quietly
stepped in to take over the party after the loss to set up his eventual
run. Paul Ryan quietly permitted or perhaps aided the coup against Boehner.
And Bill Clinton, through the DLC teed up his control of the party after
Dukakis lost.
Second, with Wells-Fargo and bank fraud once again in the news she could
be working to keep prior decisions current both to force better action this
time or to nudge the Clinton and Trump into making promises of stronger
action in the future.
It seems to me that both those objectives would be served by continuing
to hammer on Wells Fargo, so the question "Why now?" isn't really answered
in your comment.
But if you wanted to take out an option on running a full-throated populist
campaign - and throwing bankers in jail would be wildly popular across the
entire political spectrum (except Clinton's 10%-ers on up) - in the unhappy
event that the party's candidate came up lame, then calling for an account
of regulatory decision making in 2009 would be one way to signal that. Note
also that would call Obama's "legacy" into question, too; the whole "stand
between you and the pitchforks" thing. This is a big deal.
Commissioner Ohlhausen had some pretty strong words. ... Specifically, she implies a very strong
presumption against public interference in private markets, as indicated by her argument that
there is not yet sufficient evidence that we have a monopoly problem. The argument seems to be
that we must wait until we are very, very sure, beyond any reasonable econometric doubt, apparently,
that there's something wrong before we step in. ...
She is mistaken, and she ignores roughly a library-full of well-known..., sophisticated empirical
work. ...
In the end, the irony of these remarks is captured in this point: Commissioner Ohlhausen is
pretty witheringly dismissive of a certain kind of evidence of market power, and implies that
it would not support increased enforcement unless it can overcome a high methodological bar. But
for her own countervailing evidence that in fact American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve],"
she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That
environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."
In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong that evidence of harm must meet
the most exacting standards of social science. To prove that markets are in fact competitive,
however, needs nothing more than seat-of-the-pants anecdotes. Again, I mean no disrespect, and
I think we have an honest difference of opinion. But this stance is not social science, and it
is not good, empirically founded public policy. It is just ideology. ...
It's definitely true that the agencies have brought a bunch of challenges to a bunch of nasty
mergers, and perhaps total enforcement numbers have gone up a bit. But that is because we are
in the midst of a merger wave in which parties have been proposing breathtakingly massive, overwhelmingly
consolidating horizontal deals. While there is a track record to be proud of in the administration's
enforcement, especially, as the commissioner observes, in the Commission's campaign against hospital
mergers, reverse-payment deals, SEP problems, and patent trolls, and who knows how many other
matters, the fact remains that by and large the administration has mostly not taken action that
any administration would not have taken, including the Reagan and both Bush administrations. ...
If we were actually serious about antitrust, which we very much should be, we would not only block
most of these mergers, but break up many of existing behemoths (like the big banks, the media
giants, Comcast, and many others).
I'm all for breaking up the behemoths when they are indeed stifling competition. The Reagan Revolution
to anti-trust was based on a contention that some mergers were about efficiency effects. I think
this argument is sometimes overblown but it is not per se false. I do object (see below) to the
weak evidence that goes like this. Collective shareholder value rose so ergo the merger is about
efficiency effects. Anyone who argues that (see Don Luskin and the premium ice cream proposed
merger) is not very bright.
Exactly. Corporations being able to suck more profit out of the costumers (and as a result share
prices rising) is the proof that anti-trust has failed. In a fully functional competitive market
companies do not make much profit.
Accounting profits? Maybe you should read that paper by the commissioner as she makes a very clear
statement about what accounting profit would look like in a competitive market. And it is not
zero. Return to capital? Hello?
No if it was zero the whole thing breaks down. However, a small return on capital is an indication
that companies are forced to cut prices because of competition- and that is a healthy market.
So yes there is (some but) not much profit in a fully functional competitive market.
Let's define "small return". Standard financial economics puts this at the risk-free rate plus
a premium for bearing systematic risk. OK - the risk-free return now is quite small. Say 2%. But
if the risk premium is say 4%, then we are talking about a 6% expected return to assets. If that
is what you mean by small - cool.
Of course I have seen a lot of "professionals" argue for much higher returns. Of course these
professionals would flunk a Finance 101 class.
I don't think the risk premium needs to be more than about 2% unless/until the economy enter a
phase where demand outstrips supply (and more investment money needs to be attracted). If there
is a glut of investment money then the price of it (=risk free returns) should go down.
This is the kind of thinking that got Hassett and Glassman to tell us about DOW 36000. Some people
overestimate the risk premium but 2% is what a regulated utility or a leasing company gets. And
neither bears commercial risk. Dude - you can make up whatever number your heart desires but there
is market evidence on these things.
Ability to better suck profit out of a captive base of customers is an efficiency of a sort. Instead
of investing in risky new business processes or technologies one merely has to buy out your competitors.
This is practically risk free.
"Though she says that "[e]fficiencies are real"-citing no evidence for it in a speech critical
of everyone else for failure to supply evidence-there is in fact no meaningful proof that consolidation
generates social benefits. Especially in the case of mergers, a large and sophisticated empirical
literature has been hunting for decades for evidence that mergers produce "efficiencies" or other
benefits. The evidence has not been found. At least with respect to deals among publicly traded
firms, the evidence tends to suggest that mergers do no good on average for shareholders of either
acquiring or target firms, and if there were some efficiencies or larger social benefits, they
should be measurable as benefits to shareholders. The empirical evidence has therefore confirmed
the popular wisdom shared on Wall Street for years-that all this activity is not serving any good
social purpose, though it might be helping executives and their bankers quite a lot."
The conservative (Reagan) approach to anti-trust did indeed ask DOJ and FTC to consider whether
the merger was about beneficial efficiency effects v. anti-competitive effects. But let's suppose
two firms merged and their collective value did rise benefiting shareholders. That does not prove
the efficiency effects dominate. No – mergers that lead to less competition will often raise shareholder
value even if there are no efficiency effects. Those mergers should be disallowed.
Proof of Monopoly Power - Verizon and ATT's pricing and apparent lack of any interest in maintaining
or even knowing where their physical plant is installed. Also - see directTV's recent price increases.
American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which
is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."
In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong
"
You are assumed properly competing until proved monopoly-based. The burden of proof is on the
victims. Tell me something!
Does the government always appear as crystal clear as the mirror of Alice? When we look at
local, county, state, and federal rulers, do we always see ourselves? Our own bias? Our own agenda?
The government apes its voters.
Do you see how today's polity is begging for less competition? Less free trade from our trading
partners? Do you see how we want to make a monopoly out of America? Build a fence around it so
that nobody is allowed to buy anything from anyone other than our monopoly?
" We have identified the enemy, ourselves. " ~~Pogo~
Yes you need at least a dozen independent businesses delivering the same (substitutable) products
to ensure that there is indeed a competitive market that will not be gamed against the consumers.
This is not just needed to ensure that consumers will be offered a fair price, but also to ensure
that companies will be forced to continue to innovate and offer better and better products. The
oversight of mergers has been a scandal and needs to be tightened by new laws. Obviously we have
to make the "dozen rule" a law rather than just common sense guidance.
The dozen rule? Where did that come from? Depends on the market but I would hope we have more
than 12 suppliers of beer. BTW - it would be nice to have 12 health insurance companies but we
could break up this oligopoly with such one more - the government aka the public option.
Yes some products can benefit from more variation, but at least with 12 suppliers you would not
have anybody able to corner the market. The dozen rule is mine, that is how I get my eggs. If
Ohlhausen can just make it up - so can I.
The FTC has ignored a many major health care mergers but has gone litigation guns a blazin' into
small mergers in such less-than-major metro centers as Moscow Idaho and Toledo Ohio.
The sad fact is that the right-wing Law and Economics scholars have literally been trained to
believe that the only correct null hypothesis is "free markets are good". When the null is not
rejected with a 95% confidence interval, they actually think they've won the argument, while you're
sitting there scratching your head saying, but when the null hypothesis is "free markets are bad",
we can't reject that either. I've never seen logic get much traction with this crowd, because
they are literally willing to tell you that economics demonstrates that "free markets are good",
so that's the correct null.
It's very sad, but also very common when talking to lawyers. In fact, I often wonder whether
the right-wing didn't create the "Law and Economics" movement in order to slow the exposure of
the legal profession to the actual tools of modern economic analysis.
It would be a start if we would simply stop seeing hostile takeovers as something positive (you
know ex-ante efficiency improvements) and start seeing them for the interference in natural selection
that they actually are (no 40-40 foresight exists).
"... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing
integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence
of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...
..."
"... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World,
Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
"... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
"... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter
than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
"... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html
..."
"... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies
are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement,
the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers
are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian
regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
"... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
"... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
"... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other
trade is regulated trade. ..."
"... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is,
in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
"... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group,
just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
"... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe,
secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer.
Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
"... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget. ..."
"... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some
rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including
me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but
removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
"... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
"... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements
which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
"... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the
results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing
we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental
laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
"... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way
any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
"... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods
and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated
trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives
to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
"... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased
global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.
..."
What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad
consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been
a pillar of the international order. ...
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have
been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...
One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of
the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately
not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little
consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...
Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending
existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted.
On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have
run its course. ...
Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up
rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing
its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international
harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would
be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would
also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation
or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And
it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but
still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the
World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the
globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists
- for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the
US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.
What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as
well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better
would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.
The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they
are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of
almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape
of external debt.
When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests
of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.
International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no
armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of
enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers,
and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist
governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.
In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries
have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.
The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened
to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country,
nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few,
on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.
Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level.
And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved,
the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens
of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private
debt.
Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.
The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the
distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing
power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American
dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.
Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable,
but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory
that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?
Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the
US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our"
homogeneity?
I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?
The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....
ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's
group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.
It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam
artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society
is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated.
My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would
have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".
This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in
his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is
a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but
that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me
feel safe".
Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel
safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has
to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.
To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget.
I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose
some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people,
including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not
"free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and
a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose
is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade"
agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have
seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and
now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we
have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition
with backward countries.
" The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "
" ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ...
"
+1
Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then
(and only then) support it externally across the world.
Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY,
MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of
the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can
add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.
A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.
Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive
pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other
boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome
what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get
support for actions) ever gets done.
I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.
by Jared Bernstein
April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am
"...
Here's Larry's view of the way forward:
"The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project.
The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would
mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements,
whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues
related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as
much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation
through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean
an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope
desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive
process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""
It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading
partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of
this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating
ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.
It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced
around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old
trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd
best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both
here and abroad."
Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the
goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under
such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate
private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god
can't tolerate.
Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little.
We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about
the compensation principle. Turn the table!
"consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " --
"The Great Illusion" (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
)
That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which
so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either
increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick
which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital
controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated
the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to
income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008,
the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today.
This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can
only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and
it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just
become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the
1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
"... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
"... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
"... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
"... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
"... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
"... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
"... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
"... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
"... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling
similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.
The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971,
leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically,
particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive
landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.
Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.
On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees.
Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer
essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked
the nation.
And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an
end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international
financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.
And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you
altogether.
Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical
democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this
error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an
invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.
When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history
the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone
transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal
in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador
Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director
Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript.
"I am with you," Helms responded.
The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition
seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands
out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country
vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.
If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its
GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long
as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant
right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In
an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled
and idle.
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in
fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage,
followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom
years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship,
yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means
necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.
It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot
be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.
As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed
to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda
copper didn't like.
In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic
workers unskilled and idle.
The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly'
to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their
loyalty, until it becomes questionable
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity,
in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing
to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate
power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the
boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations
who made all the money didn't give a damn either.
It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their
own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government
in an effort to remedy the situation.
For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.
And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?
Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and
copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.
See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities
were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.
" . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable
line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."
"Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.
'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding
consumer essentials.'
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will
not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the
way of my bullet."
Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example,
any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."
Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the
Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?
The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In
their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution
of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests
in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.
Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.
yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies.
the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.
What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is
a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia.
Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically
in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.
Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this
was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or
Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".
Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign
policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't
falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.
"... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
"... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
"... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent
article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East."
This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the
Libyan war:
A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL]
like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but
never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL].
We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.
It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan
war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab
Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other
regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in
Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that
they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time.
Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with
their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent
any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different
message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you
won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would
change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't
make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most
countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the
U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region.
It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for
war in Libya was built.
Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their
failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the
region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq
war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of
preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states
more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault
Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but
it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong
or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world
and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack
other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country,
but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere
in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial
(and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere
constitutes abdication of "leadership."
To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of
dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter
what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really
went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with
Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war
had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing
that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is
somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to
own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil
war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended
mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war
supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the
country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to
acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions
of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still
the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago,
and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.
That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders
continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates
on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what
the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply
the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides
in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the
failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were
failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription
that they made in the past.
Remember when Larry Lindsey was fired as Bush's economic advisor when he
suggested
that the costs could be as high as $200 billion?
Good times, but at this point the Dems own it as much as the GOP.
Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality.
Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal
globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With
far reaching consequences.
Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
"... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
"... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
"... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
"... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at
least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active,
deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance
that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn
the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant
aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power
everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from
the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.
Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the
first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction
of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace
and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions
and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times,
depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens
of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans.
Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans
dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion
and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the
U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending
illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo
and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign
policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority,
are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform
the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real
security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that
the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get
a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama,
"Don't do stupid shit."
And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences
, thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled.
He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as
a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government
and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for
doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the
world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of
the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance
of aggressive American global leadership.
Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences
is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing
in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The
book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since
Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to
the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news.
More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States
under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.
♦♦♦
Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's
informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series,
The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States
continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of
"preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would
dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security
and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and
made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing
a number of different challenges.
Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming
that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly
questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling
back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in
theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints
a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs
most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber
claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad"
as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on
relationships with allies."
The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S.
foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In
the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European
allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as
the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves
have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter
is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military
weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems
with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book,
at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and
its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.
As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests
there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy.
Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described,
have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East."
He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle
East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise
of ISIS and Iran.
Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not
helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed,
he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent
they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible.
Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage
from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.
In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S.
has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show
that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies
toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In
all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due
to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims
that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide
a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.
Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American
Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity
to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists
and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is
likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats
not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests
and homeland security."
♦♦♦
Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing
when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led
international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European
allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to
consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that
incentivize free-riding.
Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in
some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering
debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S.
continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the
other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is
relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the
patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue
for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in
relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply
that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that
it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy
is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers
from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger
to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must
do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.
Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching
approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number
of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based
on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly
retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems
in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that
the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint
is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly,
Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how
he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart
of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism.
But neither make for a policy of retreat.
Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of
primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United
States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding
the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling
network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops
and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States
still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around
$600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending
and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest
competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.
And during the Obama
years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against
Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly)
in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct
drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's
troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently
the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?
Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for
problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach
he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place.
The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly
from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change.
There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region
and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that
the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative
increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result
of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous
fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists
have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that
are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than
boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer
over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President
Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the
Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine
what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice
of our Founders.
William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles
Koch Institute.
"... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
"... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
The U.S. is preparing to
increase
the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy
client:
President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new
military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38
billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S.
history.
But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest
pro-Israel critics?
Not a chance.
Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons
for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most
reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he
does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the
U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the
recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them,
neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know
that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of
"reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign
outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more
they whine the more they will gain.
It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have
never accepted and will never accept that he is actually
"pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a
trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to
demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always
has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors
that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to
Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama
supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region.
There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do
this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more
resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the
U.S.
Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal
globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of
virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped
considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization
even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we
are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization.
In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
Notable quotes:
"... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
"... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
"... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
"... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
"... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
"... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
"... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
"... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
"... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
"... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
"... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
"... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
"... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though
he were some Socialist hero.
Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's
now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.
The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the
more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being
the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.
I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate
cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are
very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at
how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly
having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate
nations.
Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of
issues as is nationalism in itself.
For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative
and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour)
pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the
wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have
to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far
right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which
people come before profit.
As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power.
A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German
president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly
humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after
the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler
had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he
was serious about that...'
Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that
strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar
it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of
the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers
spout.
Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state,
undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true
government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural
greatness.
The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews
to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more
malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and
using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower
etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on
a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping
the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more
cowardly.
Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It
is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests
and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army
is a part of NATO.
There is no independent government left or right since everything
they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then
while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.
Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance
something that is impossible to change.
We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where
everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will
rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...
Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled
out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who
chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before
WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic
states.
We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and
Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right'
means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they
think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise
definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's
a synonym for 'racist.'
It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's
worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what
they've failed to notice is
the name of his party
the fact he was
a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
he despised laissez-faire
capitalism
he hated liberal individualism.
racism isn't a political
policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against
non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!
They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump
on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man
who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage,
pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and
abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?
His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party
(which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates
how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those
who live by narrative die by narrative.
Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.
Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading
members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could
to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct
of the nazis in the first place FFS!
It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.
in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro
to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian
Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief
could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called
the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after
that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb
in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you
were saying something about Americans imposing peace?
They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building
up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This
seems likely.
"Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining
ethnic unity"
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic
vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of
them don't know the full facts. Who does?
The huge elephant in the room is NATO.
A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted
like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't
stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims
to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments
a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland
and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under
control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence.
It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that
forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more
decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region
guaranteed by peace agreement.
Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave
created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement
in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening
to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that
has brought peace to the region for 20 years.
In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..
Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's
actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska
at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy
them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims
whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the
mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite
embarrassing.
Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for
fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a
nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little,
Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.
It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking
up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude
them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags
and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians
are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened
to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941
seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian
defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes
the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.
It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't
react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.
I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others.
It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40%
unemployment.
Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.
It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others
and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is
an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.
To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of
course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of
hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.
But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative
from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness
and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story,
have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.
Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't
tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our
society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever
closer.
This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian
Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage,
the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for
Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing,
period.
Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials
all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands
without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this
policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to
preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding
blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which
Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan
entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European'
in geography).
OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than
some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental
rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion
and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national
identity is legislated for them.
This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader,
Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree
opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a
consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form
independent Croatia.
The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same
people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same
pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been
positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former
Tito general and communist.
Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated
to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United
States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise
it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely
a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may
still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker,
Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin
the divorce proceedings the better.
So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!?
Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds
and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised
him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the
Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from
WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime
Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring
what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop
weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution
should e looked for st their door!
Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding
invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london
garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking
again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant
corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian
oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven
for crooks.
Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European
'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just
as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans
is aware of this.
Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where
the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in
-
1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have
islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover
things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar,
Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it
? )
3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly
moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.
"Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska,
too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments
are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with
substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE
and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly
linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal
to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both
sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain
that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media
is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that
Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention
to pack and leave.
What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political
parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the
media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary
people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media.
By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election
after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another
geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They
want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.
This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the
young generation =
Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened,
networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace
the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.
I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described
as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist
backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism
between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism
in the 1800s.
Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine
(i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different
Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are
traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on
the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves
as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at
its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both
Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom
- the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western
view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).
My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from
seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract
sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington
and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced
by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if
you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as
pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll
find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical
reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have
a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating
each other to the point of violence.
On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is
used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination
of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development
and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is
virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in
large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should
know better...
Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science
progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation
never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees
here.
The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and
geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western
European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if
the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous
immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism
is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will
come apart.
The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong
economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy
on its borders, why the concern?
Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being
imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of
liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why
are you laughing?
It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen
in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It
differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation
state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way
it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled
in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of
their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands
a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic
awareness .
A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.
Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia...
the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered
thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something
like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are
of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries
together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them
justice).
Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely
outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists
and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have
never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will
they in the near future.
And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work,
it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that
even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning
in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us?
Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe
has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even
be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all
of sudden, of course.
For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out
their own countries.
People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians
for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up
it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason
behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the
right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate.
They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.
Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.
It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained
ethnic rivalries. Good.
We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division.
It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.
Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should
be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould
adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise!
("No Surrender").
If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can
bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's
newly adopted citizens.
If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore
this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect
former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't
let them join (Never, never, never!).
Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country
is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do
some bloody research.
And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically
Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will
not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone
to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal.
It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.
Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came
from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing
to put it all in one article.
But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians,
only last year.
Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off
- no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives
the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard
right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine
and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to
protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't
have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which
case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war
games again.
Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US
defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.
What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the
Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made
them do it ...
Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and
Westminster government
its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the
word nationalism
it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a
history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the
basic meaning of the word
The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing
at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the
alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond,
i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed
over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always
been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People
will fight back.
Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically
deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will
simply grow and grow.
Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda
for a very good reason.
Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European
powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably
the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence
of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation
of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their
historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago.
Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear
20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it
can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their
puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create
a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army,
open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual
countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt
and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least
we had the balls to brexit.
These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic
world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto
far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political
economic and educational system.
I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its
last breath.
Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as
advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini,
adored statism (state-control).
The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism
('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler
was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and
time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal
individualism.
Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to
the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing
the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive
party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who
supported it.
The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism,
just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start
with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a
blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european
economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed
with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone
looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism?
It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting
one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.
We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a
border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament,
a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness'
is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists;
much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is
our national religion).
'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While
we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation
held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point
of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority
of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one
which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.
I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity,
open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but
can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states
in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the
nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international
relations.
That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular
fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism;
the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust
to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they
are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes;
it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together
in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill;
it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.
You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive
politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group
is the problem.
If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe
progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against
non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely
favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes,
these are bigoted attitudes.
They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism,
gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other
groups (ie, white heterosexual males).
Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called
'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear
and the idiocy.
It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the
virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement
of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation'
someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that,
sorry, ain't so nice.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
...the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy is already here: the
technological-industrial 'machine' is already running the world, a world where individual
humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human
being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman
- has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable
logic of what has been unleashed.
~ G Sampath on John Zerzan
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
Notable quotes:
"... And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. ..."
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept
new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going
to be done about it? Currently more Americans trust the military than any
institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion
against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US
Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and
intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against
the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious
"high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the
president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with.
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen
Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had
perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action
(assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their
cover up and
the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete
lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched
expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about
their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that
you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly
impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge
of the crime.
That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.
I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model)
14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly
less due to the acceleration stage.
So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the
target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.
According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud
to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report
was for midday on the 17th.
But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke
plume.
In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site
at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.
"... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics
and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering
over the last 200 years.
"President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment"
has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality
unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear
to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia,
like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the
neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor
performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively.
In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive
for Russia."
This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin
is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking
him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody
will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western
voice stilled.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
"... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
"... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
"... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
"... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
Wow;
there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among
the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily,
the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension
of curiosity.
"Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko
has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.
"All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure
from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities
the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is
on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."
And it's starting to have an effect.
"According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned
$1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.
Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who
now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us,"
she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given
to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."
And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely
saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west
trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.
"... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
As the White House prepares for its final "
all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming
lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle
are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly
trade deal.
"[I]n 2016," the Guardian
reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become
the most sensitive controversy in D.C."
Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian
journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation
TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had,
not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."
... ... ...
Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with
Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal,"
as the Washington Post
reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.
To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger
Dave Johnson
listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition
from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights,
faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade
promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting
up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."
Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis
(Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before
the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
"... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
"... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
"... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
"... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths
are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton
by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths
have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary
lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement
as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v.
set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie
carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,
enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your
head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."
What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work.
Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim
of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled
me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right
stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump
up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose
her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully
constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough.
No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she
"landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
"helped bring peace to Ireland"
"negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources
prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch,
with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim
honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."
It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National
Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and
Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on
Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries,
Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's
NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.
Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government
and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the
clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as
the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and
the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's
headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus
and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining
to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking
about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few
days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the
U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still
burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance
that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after
they are published.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
"... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
"... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
"... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
"... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
"... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
"... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
"... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
"... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
"... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
"... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
"... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc
over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble
after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.
Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc
over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following
the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions
remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.
"We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is
now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.
"Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said
Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money
left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension
fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter
of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with
salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin
before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt,"
said Mr Mitov.
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the
second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country
is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding
from the central bank.
Dave Hanson
For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula
is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to
create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the
National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of
the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary
headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough
to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism.
Clever journalism.
steph borne •
jezzam steph borne •a day ago
''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the
transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It
is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.''
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
.
jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
but it is ''Perceptions''???
''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring
absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
Just more nonsense from Jezzam
soton
my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day,
from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average
joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their
properties plunge
Rosbif2
So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in
other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and
menace Europe?
It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each
other & drown even faster
AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles
giltedged
This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that
that forecast is still liable to happen
What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real
news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"
Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside
the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar,
that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially
a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European,
that his own country survives because of London property sales
Richard N
And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate
situation of Russia!
Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist
of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not
own'.
I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out
the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression'
in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action
in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in
Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to
replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.
Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all
- but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming
to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists,
leaving then
China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists'
control.
Richard N > jezzam • a day ago
If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with
reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA
Mr. Colby said.
He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine
crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western
media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain
can see that - but clearly not you.
steph borne
''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''
01 Jun 2015
''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative
growth
forecast''
Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside
of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency
and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy)
people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services
and restoring economic balance.
I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom
and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience
at it.
Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe
was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals
buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age
of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th
century means to them, you might be surprised.
steph borne > Halou
Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade
surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets
leaving the country is a good thing....
Strange that the Germans don't agree --
''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015.
Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of
2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction
steph borne
02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html
01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html
24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html
22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
.
Still going!!!
Graham Milne
Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is
the UK which is toast, not Russia.
billsimpson > Graham Milne
Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the
people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit
hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real
problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur,
or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness
the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around
on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.
Sal20111
Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas.
They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales
smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales
to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.
Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth
has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be
rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not
to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether
there is much of a small to medium business culture.
With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public,
particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.
rob22
Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to
force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work.
So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a
single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour,
uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could
pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on
a tank.
Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import
substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its
Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian
Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the
region (see new American century doc)
Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because
it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations
oil revenue went to wall st and everything else
If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars
and spend in rubles.
This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.
Londonmaxwell
Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis",
"plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow
looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants,
crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.
Ambrose misses some key points.
First, if Gazprom's revenues fell from $146bn to $106bn, then this
implies (drumroll) a revenue increase from RUB 5.1 trillion to RUB 5.8
trillion. Since Gazprom/Lukoil/Rosneft et al have USD revenues but RUB
expenses, they are all doing quite nicely, as is the Russian treasury.
Second, while Russian companies do have foreign debt to pay back,
I suspect much of this "debt" is owed to (drumroll) Russian-controlled
companies in BVI, Cyprus, Luxie, Swissie, and the other usual suspects.
Third, if the oil price declines more in 2015, the Kremlin will simply
let the ruble slide, and the biggest losers will again be (drumroll)
European exporters.
Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious
as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game
is just beginning.
energman58 > Londonmaxwell
Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living
standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company
there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most
of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions
they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing
debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model
of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I
am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to
see their assets wither away...
Londonmaxwell > energman58
Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point.
If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow
has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already
face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations
with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale
sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private)
is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit
markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't
see the wheels falling off anytime soon.
AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia
is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the
mark.
steph borne
Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.
midnightrambler
Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles
such as this one.
So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting
involved in themselves
snotcricket
It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question
the obvious US gov line in such articles.
Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was
in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat
in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target
with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.
Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation
that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal
footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would
be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly
the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced
by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin
this would have been the outcome.
With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well
those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist
for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became
a damn sight worse after the imposition.
The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage
to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as
oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies
(the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market
is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation
gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.
This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting
to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general
w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have
kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time
& money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't
respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its
armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any
economy.
Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in
between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect
my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes
& the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one
or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the
Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be
a can yet to be kicked down the road.
Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU
leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the
brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.
steph borne
If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so
helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more
downward pressure on the oil price!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help
clinching Iran deal
oleteo
Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!"
The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy
are greatly exaggerated.
steph borne
June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to
sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing
a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine
aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
.
Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed
by the useful idiots in the EU
snotcricket > steph borne
Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western,
er, er partners
Sonduh
Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer
debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt
will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and
they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I
hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.
steph borne
A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop
by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding
Russia's economic base.''
Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion
will buy 6148 Billion pybs
Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget
revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..
Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for
independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported
stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be
bought!
As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued
rouble is the EUs problem!
Nikki Santoro
What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese
and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are
going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked.
And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs
in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack,
it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they
provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.
steph borne
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''
So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You
and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..
Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the
usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142
USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....
Debt public/ external debt ratios
U. K..................92%........317%
usa...................74%......... 98%
And
Russia...............8%..........40%
''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far
too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest
in half a century,''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake
don't look here!)
Sonduh > steph borne
And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.
Skalla
Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception
to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with
its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a
very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears
do is FEED --
vandieman
A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push
Russia into a war.
Anth2305 > vandieman
Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit
on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis
into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.
gardiner
When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection
of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically
all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and
society was at its weakest.
The economy became dependant on resource exports.
Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically
no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating,
internationally competitive industry.
Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!
beatonthedonis > gardiner
Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky
wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state
official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was
an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer.
Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.
daddyseanicus
So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared
to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to
flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.
But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.
Busufi > Jonathan
In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the
same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black
or white, so long it catches the mice.
Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up
Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim
Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would
quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable
security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand
market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa,
and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance
(like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based
upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the
Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).
The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's)
opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.
Sonduh
" They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115%
non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household
debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.
PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many
hundred pc of GDP.
The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to
pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying Ł7.1 trillion
in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still
in the workforce.
This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output.
Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand
billion – is obviously a huge number.
And we think Russia is in a bad state.
georgesilver
Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable
debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia
has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.
Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.
tarentius > georgesilver
The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia
has 1,200 tonnes.
Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced
to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And
it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.
Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already
bankrupt. The number is rising.
And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.
Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.
Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan •
The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight
up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians
.. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to
join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable "
the people would back them ..
Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart
from stand up to the US that is
Jim0341
Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever,
he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are
generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing,
or otherwise, of the national economy..
Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.
Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist
I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and
wars are not hurting us ..
Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried
to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but
it will come back to bite them ..
The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let
the US squabble with them by themselves ..
I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and
the rest of the world"
alec bell
This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom
is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible.
1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly
capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling
holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.
Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.
And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the
atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically
follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their
industrial and agricultural renaissance.
In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue.
Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal
stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering
steam under the surface.
alec bell > vlad
vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum
(which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way,
producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing
and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while
Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including
Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000
and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.
Nikki Santoro
Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless
you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still
they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However
their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't
have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing
to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and
then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.
steve_from_virginia
Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices
would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have
'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions
of bankrupt consumers the world around.
Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing
power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers
go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.
At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing
the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will
be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing
power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.
Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there
is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future
will arrive the day after tomorrow.
Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk
it?
Brabantian
If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom'
- now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -
Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about
midnightrambler > Guest
The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries
combined
The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence
- apart from manipulative banking.
We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and
those whose main aim is control and conflict.
Take your pick
A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose
peace.
And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit
Timothy D. Naegele
Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.
See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse
With Purges, Broken Promises")
Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele
"Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."
This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen
lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an
illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process
. Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US
neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds
the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten
despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.
midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele
A yank lawyer advocating killing.
From the land of citizen killers
What a surprise
Stay away
stephenmarchant
Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the
Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies
including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly
Ł2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the
UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as
a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-
Govt deficit at 5% per anum
Govt debt at about 80% GDP
Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
Uncontrolled immigration
Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst
they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first
crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because
of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.
In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon
its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social
cohesion.
Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat
The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance
beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate'
them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that,
they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.
Busufi
The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to
invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would
give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.
Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not
smart.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
"... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
"... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine
(Review,
21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide
a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.
The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year
programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to
use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.
There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately
sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and
a democratic Russia would pose
a major threat to American long-term economic interests.
The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems
primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.
Martin Packard (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire
"... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
"... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
"... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
"... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
"... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
"... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
"... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011,
hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been
convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United
States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with
Russia.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role
in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest
accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including
who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring
to an end many countries' reckless actions.
A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed,
the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the
issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial
Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines,
recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.
Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times
finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the
account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under
Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.
Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow
up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi
operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis,
Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What
is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering
these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.
On
more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots
on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement
that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon
routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently
carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified
the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been
given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.
Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare
statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated
war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars
on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces,
including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise
sums are not reported.
The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget
approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and
international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.
To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should
be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against
those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret
wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would
only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.
I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by
democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the
US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations
Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts
to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested
from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the
battleground.
The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors
imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support
to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin
block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with
Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.
These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident
that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime
change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also
recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American
people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair
his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.
"... The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution [by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president' was totally illegitimate." ..."
"... However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime. ..."
When a fascist putsch, a coup d'etat, overthrew at gunpoint the popular progressive
democratic President of Honduras on 28 June 2009, and all countries of the world
except Israel and the United States promptly declared the junta-installed government
illegitimate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to join all other nations
in rejecting the fascist regime. As I previously
reported this matter in detail, the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras told her
in a cable, that President Manuel Zelaya had been illegally replaced by the
junta-appointed stooge Roberto Michelettti, yet she still refused.
The Ambassador's urging to her said: "The actions of June 28 can only
be considered a coup d'etat. ... It bears mentioning that, whereas the resolution
[by the junta] adopted June 28 refers only to Zelaya, its effect was to remove
the entire executive branch. ... His forced removal by the military was clearly
illegal, and [puppett-leader Roberto] Micheletti's ascendance as 'interim president'
was totally illegitimate."
However, instead, she joined with then-Senator Jim DeMint (now head of
the Heritage Foundation and the chief sponsor of the political career of Texas
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz) in propping up the fascist regime.
Promptly Honduras descended into hell, suddenly having the world's highest
murder-rate, and becoming a haven of narco-trafficking. What was Hillary thinking?
She expressed contempt for Zelaya, but what was really happening here was that
American international companies liked paying their Honduran contractors sub-human
wages to workers at their plants in Honduras. The Honduran aristocrats owned
those factories, and the U.S. aristocrats shared with them the profits from
this "free-market" slavery. What did Hillary care about the ongoing terror,
murders, and soaring narco-trafficking?
"... Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately suspended following the coup. ..."
"... Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The justification given by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had taken place. Clinton's State Department claimed that State Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken place. ..."
"... This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton, with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." ..."
On June 28, 2009, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, democratically
elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup.
The United Nations, the European Union and the Organization of American States
(OAS) condemned the coup, and on July 5, Honduras was suspended from the OAS.
Under longstanding and clear-cut US law, all US aid to Honduras - except
democracy assistance - including all military aid, should have been immediately
suspended following the coup.
On August 7, 15 House
Democrats, led by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, sent a letter to the administration
which began, "As you know, on June 28th, 2009, a military coup took place in
Honduras," and said: "The State Department should fully acknowledge that a military
coup has taken place and follow through with the total suspension of non-humanitarian
aid, as required by law."
Why wasn't US aid to Honduras suspended following the coup? The
justification given
by Clinton's State Department on August 25 for not suspending US aid to Honduras
was that events in Honduras were murky and it was not clear whether a coup had
taken place. Clinton's State Department
claimed that State
Department lawyers were studying the murky question of whether a coup had taken
place.
This justification was a lie, and Clinton's State Department knew it
was a lie. By July 24, 2009, the State Department, including Secretary Clinton,
knew clearly that the action of the Honduran military to remove President Zelaya
on June 28, 2009, constituted a coup. On July 24, US Ambassador to Honduras
Hugo Llorens
sent a cable to top US officials, including Secretary of State Clinton,
with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," thoroughly documenting
the assertion that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted
an illegal and unconstitutional coup."
"... The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details. ..."
"... Her bellicose interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy relates in Hillary's Choice: ..."
"... Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic disaster in our history." ..."
"... Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial, reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy, the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she maintaind, "is undisputed." ..."
"... When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war. ..."
The Democrats' Athena only differs from Bush on the details.
Hillary's newfound centrism isn't completely insincere. Her bellicose
interventionism has a history: it was Hillary, you'll recall, who berated her
husband for not bombing Belgrade soon enough and hard enough. As Gail Sheehy
relates in Hillary's Choice:
Hillary expressed her views by phone to the President: 'I urged him to bomb.'
The Clintons argued the issue over the next few days. [The president expressed]
what-ifs: What if bombing promoted more executions? What if it took apart the
NATO alliance? Hillary responded, 'You cannot let this go on at the end of a
century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO
for if not to defend our way of life?' The next day the President declared that
force was necessary.
Together with Madeleine Albright-who famously complained to Colin Powell,
"What good is it having this superb military you're always talking about if
we can't use it?"-Hillary constituted the Amazonian wing of the Democratic Party
during the years of her husband's presidency. Her effort to outflank the Republicans
on the right when it comes to the Iran issue is a logical extension of her natural
bellicosity.
Hillary is nothing if not consistent: in her floor speech to the Senate during
the debate over the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she declared,
"the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt"-a statement
she has never acknowledged regretting. Particularly endearing to the War Party,
she framed her "aye" vote in terms of the classic neoconservative myth of Bush
I's betrayal:
The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab
states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred
hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the
Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to
Saddam's revenge.
Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad
at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding
boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as "the greatest strategic
disaster in our history."
Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed
thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated
by the Bush administration: "[T]he so-called presidential palaces in reality
were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which
Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked
the inspection process, the inspectors left." As we now know, there was nothing
even approaching WMD in those palaces, and Iraq had been effectively disarmed
at that point. In late February or early March, Scott Ritter, then a UN arms
inspector, met with then-U.S. ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson. Ritter was
told to provoke an incident so the U.S. could finish bombing by the start of
the Islamic New Year holiday.
Hillary, however, didn't let any inconvenient facts get in her way. She
boasted that it was under a Democratic administration that the U.S. "changed
its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change" and took
credit for the bright idea of putting Ahmad Chalabi, convicted embezzler and
known liar, on the U.S. payroll. Her speech reads like a Weekly Standard editorial,
reiterating each of the War Party's talking points-the bio-weapons fantasy,
the links to al-Qaeda gambit, the phantom nuclear arsenal: "This much," she
maintaind, "is undisputed."
What is undisputed these days is that the entire rationale for war was based
on trumped-up evidence of Iraq's alleged transgressions, but Hillary is unrepentant:
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was
in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States,
and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community
for more than a decade."
But there was no threat to the U.S. and Hillary knows it. What's more, her
hardcore constituency knows it, and they are becoming increasingly alienated
from-even actively hostile to-their putative presidential frontrunner over this
issue. Their anger is stoked by evidence that Hillary has imbibed the same neocon
Kool-Aid that has intoxicated the Bush administration and blinded it to the
failure of its policies in Iraq.
On a trip to Iraq during which 55 people-including one American soldier -were
killed by suicide bombers, Hillary was merrily chirping that the occupation
was "functioning quite well" and that the surge of suicide attacks indicated
that the insurgency was failing. Security was so bad that the road to the airport
was impassable, and the Senate delegation had to be transported to the Green
Zone by military helicopter. They dared not venture out into the streets of
Baghdad.
The disconnect between rhetoric and reality, between the antiwar views of
Hillary's left-wing base and the militant interventionism of Wittmann and the
DLC crowd, finally forced her to come to grips with the contradiction-or at
least to appear to do so. This occurred not in a public speech but in an e-mail
sent to her supporters in which the trouble she is in is acknowledged in the
first sentence: "The war in Iraq is on the minds of many of you who have written
or who have called my office asking questions and expressing frustration." Chances
are, these callers were expressing frustration not only with the policies of
the Bush administration but with her own complicity with Bush's Middle Eastern
agenda of seemingly endless aggression.
She falls back on the old "there are no quick and easy answers" ploy to give
an aura of thoughtfulness to a dishonest and constantly shifting position on
the war. While insisting that we should not "allow this to be an open-ended
commitment without limits or end," she reassures the War Party by distancing
herself from John Murtha and others who want an orderly withdrawal in a relatively
short time: "Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately."
She hails the elections as the signal that we can start the withdrawal process
sometime "in the coming year," but not completely: we must leave behind "a smaller
contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities"-a
tripwire, in short, in the form of permanent bases.
... ... ...
What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism,
one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant
than the Republican version-one that "levels with the American people" about
the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American
hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't
one the traditional Left in this country will recognize.
... ... ...
If the Democratic establishment's stance on the war is at odds with the party's
antiwar activist base, then their outright warmongering on the Iranian issue
puts the two factions on a collision course. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi-who
effectively quashed fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey's resolution calling
for a withdrawal timetable -has followed the Hillary-Emanuel-DLC party line,
while managing somehow to assuage her constituents with plenty of pork and partisan
rhetoric. When it comes to Iran, however, she is just as belligerent as
the next neocon: Pelosi co-sponsored legislation imposing draconian economic
sanctions on Iran and stops just short of calling another war.
"... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
"... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
"... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
"... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail
in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the
hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military
can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering
cost or consequence.
Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of
the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by
war," as Tim Carney
rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson
from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent
messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."
Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn.
Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that
her handiwork in Libya is an
example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose
blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career.
With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already
swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult
to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country
it was
never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.
And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must
not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass.
Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right
to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives'
all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all
easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would
have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint,
minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting
off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our
own.
Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism.
That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which
shows all the signs of running on repeat.
"... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
"... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
"... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine
(Review,
21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide
a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.
The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year
programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to
use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.
There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately
sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and
a democratic Russia would pose
a major threat to American long-term economic interests.
The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems
primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.
Martin Packard (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire
"... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
"... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
"... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
"... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
"... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
"... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
"... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
"... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started
the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian
hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal
and leaked to Russia Today
four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary
Clinton.
For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal
is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial
capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure
as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans
font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark,
no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in
2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with
the
e-mails the State Department released to the public .
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal
to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release.
The
first e-mail Clinton
asks to have printed and she also
forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The
second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and
forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The
third e-mail is also
forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State
Department record completely.
This missing e-mail
from February 16, 2013 only exists in the
original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had
evidence that the
In Amenas and
Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia."
This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such
was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however,
we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence
from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough
of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English
as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies,
it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence
briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser
that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not
followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except
for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be
due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in
question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary
of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is
trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State
on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.
So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail
investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia
was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into
it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton
trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough
to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary
of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed
the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with
this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission
investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this
be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly
so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi
involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the
millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?
These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed
to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified
until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week.
In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also
leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference
this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release,
we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest.
Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested
as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly
relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed
it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form.
This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified
information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server
despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with
such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains
why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was
deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed
e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence
and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason
why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the
first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically
"unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government
e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has
already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's
e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails
were subpoenaed, although
a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have
any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject
line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.
In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are
in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where
this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded
unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would
not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be
deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony.
In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal
and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding
the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.
Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened
After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February
29th, it has been reported in the last week that:
Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan
Pagliano, has been
given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving
testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation
and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading
the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary
extradition order to the United States
granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back
in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to
the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a
grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand
jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence
she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign
in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the
future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while
there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing
conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold
the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time
for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing.
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary
Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.
Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton -
not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators
use - is a compulsive liar.
Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything
that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an
objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently
lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality.
I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are
independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological
affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.
Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate
with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After
all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing
political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist
philosophy.
so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on
911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on
911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories
to protect their saudi pals?
BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this
piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow"
should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary
who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned
in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American
Iraq invasion too.
The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners
going back to Mena, Arkansas.
The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best
friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church
and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and
many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and
Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.
We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful
Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.
The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie
North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was
Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes
and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena
continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge.
BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped
finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy
bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no
surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so
dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.
And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal
to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in
bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather
climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."
That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department
of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation
and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are
going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs
who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.
I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He
looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits
their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to
cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United
States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments
on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what
difference does it make?
Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the
jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with
obsolete shit weapons, I think.
So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the
loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.
God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious
principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.
Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the
US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So
I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving
them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified,
then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their
private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't
see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.
As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary
learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he
ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time
to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party,
and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground
before she gives up her dream.
No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just
like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets
of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?
Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of
parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy
from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses,
and the host may die as a result.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still
time to nominate another candidate.
It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will
ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize
that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat
Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily
pissed.
Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the
article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think
she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to
Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...
BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their
sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and
compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each
campaign speech.
They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
"... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
"... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
"... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
"... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
"... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
"... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
"... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
"... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's
signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a
strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred
to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed
"channel" built out of rewards and punishments.
...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments,
have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established
a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented
anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed
Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about
the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.
...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to
jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose
and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial
sanctions and even criminal charges.
...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival
Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim
Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist
militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and
developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was
tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned
back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary
of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi
regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that
helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing
of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious
glee and
declared,
"we came, we saw, he died."
Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures
including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping
to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base.
(Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)
... ... ...
Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2,
"One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood
in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the
United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies,
has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."
... ... ...
Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country
via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel"
to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington.
But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm
American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down
Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate.
Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?
Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton
was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a
very very dangerous woman.
Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am
While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic
concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is
also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able
to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost
all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign
contributions from military industry.
For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from
1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing
the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of
each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars
since.
This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch
of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each
region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution.
It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses
of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated
syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human
or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting
the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would
read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily
be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,
The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the
universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range
of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest
range of viewpoints.
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating
until it becomes common gospel.
Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA
recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan
campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been
correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major
executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the
past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after
black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.
The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means
of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead
the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when
the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward
to…. what?
One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I
feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire
the best of efforts.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm
The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for
many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which
we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin."
This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people
around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls
close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent
is probably as perilous as she is.
Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful
to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site.
If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon
hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her
hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."
In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous
***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating
out Bush the Dumber.
Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing
the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So
far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the
neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland
and the TPP?
SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
"So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're
trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for
building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so
the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans,
distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in,
and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
…" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a
la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"?
And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in
2011?
Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking,
so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the
basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the
Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an
impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched
Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a
North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about,
he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated
and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered
to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was
dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently
didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!
How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries
we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once
and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her
Wellesley education; she's not that bright.
dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am
Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her
Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating
from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy
train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker
realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization
would bring chaos throughout the region.
Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew
that, she is incapable.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings
in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've
listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there
a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US
governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong.
Could it be arrogance?
In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly
different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that
country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run
US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report
their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya,
they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out
that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives
by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be
very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable
to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested
and sympathetic listeners.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm
It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing
circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could
it be arrogance?
It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or
a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act
to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide
might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted
capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious
offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom
they were associated.
In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic."
They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing
their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they
can continue to commit more travesties.
Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence
across the region has galvanized it instead.
Moving the mercenary forces
of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight
another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they
will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across
the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects"
from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and
destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize
and destroy Egypt.
IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended
and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces
and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria,
where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely
no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining
and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in
Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.
Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya,
neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably
precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable
danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge
of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by
many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs
fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention
anyway.
One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally
create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad
to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.
Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan
people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US
Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN
gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension
of the 0.01%
rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm
All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more,
and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building
giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening
to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend
communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction,
was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country.
Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.
Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will
capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring
was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future,
thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways
of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer
products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the
Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers,
which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant
here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That
we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats),
as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our
dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to
carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's
an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will
- and no one will dare stop us.
Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like
this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President
of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories.
Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just
blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that
selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.
Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set
in motion,
Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this
commotion!
Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been
preempted,
Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt
them.
Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their
thieves for a banquet-
Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets
they'll crank it.
Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided
indictment,
Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts
of corruption.
He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no
help from Clinton,
Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner
excitement!
If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and
replace him.
The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need
to worry,
The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves
of migration.
If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is
such a quick swim!
The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance
advisor.
They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems
quite consistent-
Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the
Dinar will prosper.
Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a
miser!
Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to
a ditch,
But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone
will emerge,
They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence
will flow unabated.
The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't
be a hitch.
But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine
skills leaner and meaner,
He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make
him or break him,
He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes
spew that stench:
A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any
old wiener!
His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and
camouflaged perch.
He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet
classified selfies,
If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers
or briefs,
The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image
to smirch.
He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence
analysts squirm,
Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in
his shorts.
As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must
prevail.
There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy
trauma.
The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really
get spooked.
Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh
or a cackle.
Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible
quote:
"We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw,
and we nuked."
Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a
sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that
the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more.
It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for
world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already
know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The
western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against
radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy
will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a
good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by
reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.
Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being
installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and
that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good
against evil.
My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest
prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have
anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course
their agenda.
Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with
a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their
fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for
and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among
the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will
always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.
This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to
oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother
Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg,
Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats
and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in
part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.
Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am
Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the
people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support
them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They
are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be
utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.
The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now.
As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
Notable quotes:
"... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
"... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
"... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
"... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
"... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
"... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
"... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
"... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
"... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
"... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
"... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed
the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible
policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being
pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits
who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in
Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab
leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when
he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our
allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single
boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful,
fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has
been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which
you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that
we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland,
but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact
on what happens in a country like Libya.
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had
produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest
indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the
catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya
itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't
have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support
for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He
threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable
and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the
secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian
and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect
regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with
NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc
of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has
pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American
mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
... ... ...
David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University
Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida
Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.
Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what
they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political
system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.
Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little
or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.
Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make
a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with
a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political
choice not an intelligent one.
Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal
global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal
vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that
will take too much space to elucidate.
But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi:
https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI
Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University
How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure
at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading
healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing
as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east,
her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine
entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South
China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune,
providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation
money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?
AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then
you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.
Charles Hill · Clifton High School
This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they
did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.
And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing
no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided
to support. Now ISIS is running things there.
Brian Donahue · New York, New York
The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary
will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.
Clarc King · Bronx, New York
A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic,
elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed
and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American
Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US
presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.
Linda LaRoque · Odessa College
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so
share it with those under 50.
Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary
to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about
$13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her
first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names
from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some
may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious
sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused
to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations,
cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale
was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and
the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years
of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill
Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more
notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation
they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr
as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation
led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's
devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by
repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times
while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White
House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary
of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe
will fall next.
That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against
her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her
State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the
State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.
Terry Lee · Telgar
The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on?
It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!
Elizabeth Fichtl
The country is waking up.
Question put to HRC during the debate.
Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold
in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President
Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson
was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that
we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the
Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"
Leslie Ware · Preston High School
Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:
1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as
a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity
of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense
information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of
an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper,
secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone
knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example
destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still
remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the
Washington Field Office of the FBI.
2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure"
of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized
retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States
or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.
Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI
agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar
language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her
to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that
is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified
information.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a
judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement
of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document
required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this
pretender to the presidency really is.
Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her
previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while
saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally
incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.
Clinton for Trial 2016.
Mike Kelly
OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.
The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire
things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information
was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result,
your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political
purposes, as was done during the previous administration.
David Auner · Springfield, Missouri
This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence
is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about
repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting
tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for
every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing
out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more
than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information
about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid
for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper
analysis.
Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho
Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply
will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and
will neolib us.
Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited
US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to
Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.
Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press
The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning
up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization
destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell
over themselves to put a knife in his back.
James Charles O'Donnell III
Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who
is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in
a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?
Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability
ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper
fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election
to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that
will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those
SCOTUS seats!).
With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner,
inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely
(corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 --
and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career
enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country
and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September
11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the
administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to
prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
... ... ...
Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi"
at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed
her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood
and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan
Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the
terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference
to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton
stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American
public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this
point, does it make?"
... ... ...
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years
as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst
in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security
Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.
Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and
administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism.
No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men
have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote
more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
Notable quotes:
"... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
"... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
"... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular
on
futures price manipulation.
Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may
have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very
horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the
revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.
I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments,
we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal
member of the Wall Street wing.
Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a
brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed
to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. And it was a job well done.
No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding
they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product
of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric
she may wear during any political campaign.
Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out
wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at
a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.
Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.
"... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
"Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run
the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push
President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more
American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under
President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove
Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria
held by U.S.-backed rebels.
"... Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning. ..."
"... Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence. The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver. ..."
"... The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear energy and high-speed rail transport. "Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times. ..."
"... Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of offering Beijing a strategic partnership. ..."
"... As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying: "What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor] Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future." ..."
"... Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant way. ..."
"... For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China. ..."
"... But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump up its financial centre in the City of London. ..."
Britain's lavish state reception for Chinese President Xi Jinping is
a dash-for-cash that shows how desperate the crumbling former empire is for
foreign investment.
British Prime Minister David Cameron is laying on the finest trappings of the
state to impress his Asian visitor – even as it causes misgivings within British
society and tensions in Britain's "special relationship" with Washington. But
Cameron has no choice. Britain is broke and badly needs capital investment.
Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken
aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning.
The Daily Express reported how premier David Cameron and his Tory government
are "rolling out the red carpet to beg for cash" during the Chinese leader's
first state visit to Britain. Meanwhile, the Financial Times gave prominence
to critics accusing Britain of "kowtowing" to China.
President Xi and his wife were this week treated to a state banquet at Buckingham
Palace, where the couple stayed as special guests of Queen Elizabeth. Throughout
the visit, Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne are to accompany the Chinese
guests during the four-day itinerary.
Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence.
The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the
British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver.
"About 150 deals are expected to be sealed this week in areas such as healthcare,
aircraft manufacturing and energy… Britain hopes to advance efforts to turn
London into a key trading centre for China's currency, the renminbi, and
to boost trade with the world's second largest economy," according to the
Guardian
The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear
energy and high-speed rail transport.
"Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes
from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times.
Some might say that this lavish reception is just the best of British hospitality
afforded to the leader of the world's second biggest economy. There's nothing
wrong, they say, with Cameron calling for a "golden era" in relations between
Britain and China.
Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic
relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western
partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of
offering Beijing a strategic partnership.
Nevertheless, the dramatic appeal to China by British leaders has the unerring
whiff of unscrupulous money-grubbing. Human rights campaigners and readers of
Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper are displeased at what they say is the
Conservative government's "hypocrisy" on the issue of human rights. Critics
point to an alleged crackdown by Beijing authorities on media and civic groups,
as well as the repression of dissent in Hong Kong.
We don't have to agree with these critics in order to see that the British
government is being far from principled, according to its own much-vaunted "British
values".
Previously, Britain has made protests about human rights and over Hong Kong
in particular. Now, however, all that is being hushed up during President Xi's
visit – to the dismay of British rights campaigners.
Ironically, while Queen Elizabeth was entertaining President Xi, her son
Prince Charles stayed away from the banquet at Buckingham Palace.
It has been speculated that he was making a veiled protest over China's relations
with Tibet, where Charles is a keen supporter of the Dalai Lama.
Even more fraught is Britain's balancing act with the United States.
Just as Washington is sending a convoy of warships towards Chinese islands
in the South China Sea, London is rolling out the red carpet for the Chinese
leader.
As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying:
"What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor]
Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards
and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future."
This is the second time that Britain has defied Uncle Sam over Chinese relations.
Last year, Britain signed up to the newly launched Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, defying Washington's efforts at isolating China.
Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely
that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant
way.
For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with
Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment
opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also
tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China.
The point is that the whole affair shows a hypocritical expedience by the
British state. Cameron and his government have been foremost in criticising
Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine and human rights. On that score, London
has been a cheerleader for imposing Western economic sanctions against Moscow,
and dragging the rest of Europe to back Washington in a counterproductive stand-off.
But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has
no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment
are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump
up its financial centre in the City of London.
So when David Cameron pontificates about the "best of British values", we
should know that chief among those "values" is hypocrisy. Followed by duplicity
and unscrupulousness.
Cameron and his government no doubt think they are being really "smart" by
playing such double-games. But in doing so, Britain exposes itself as being
bereft of any principles. On the world stage, it is just a broken-down imperial
has-been that now gets by with an oversized begging bowl and a posh accent.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
Looks like now line in 1920th the global pendulum moves toward nationalism.
So in a way neoliberalism breeds nationalism and transnational elite paves the way
for dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the past. Transnational elites
start to recognize the danger, but they can do nothing about it as Trump has shown
so vividly in the USA.
High unemployment logically lead to nationalism and all
those neoliberal politicians understood that they are destroying the county but
continue to plunder it anyway. Biden already cried uncle about the danger of far
right nationalism on CNN. But reality in the USA is not then different from the
reality in Britain.
Notable quotes:
"... No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed. ..."
"... Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU. ..."
"... Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we? ..."
It's hard to say if that was the wakeup call that led to a sharp reversal and
Thursday's historic vote to leave the EU, but it was nevertheless a stunning
realization that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to stem the tide of
immigrant workers flooding the UK's job market, as he had promised to do.
Meanwhile, a laundry list of commentators from the
Washington Post and
Esquire to
Vox and the
New York Times chalked it all up to millions of racist xenophobes who are
terrified of immigrants mucking up their pristine white privileged world. If
that sounds at all similar to the anti-Trump rhetoric, you can sort of see where
this is going.
The thing is, there's nothing even remotely irrational or bigoted about the
alarming
transformation of Britain's job market. Since 1997, the number of foreign-born
workers has doubled to one in six. And since 2014, three EU migrants have found
jobs for every Brit, according to official government figures. And, as we'll
see in a minute, there are concerning parallels on this side of the pond, as
well.
I hear from college grads and experienced professionals looking for jobs
all the time, but a recent inquiry from a 27-year-old Edinburgh, Scotland woman
with a BS in microbiology and excellent grades got my attention. She has applied
for more than 400 jobs without managing to secure an interview. Not a single
one.
More concerning is that the workforce itself has continued to shrink over
the same period. Whether that reflects increasing competition, lack of in-demand
skillsets or both doesn't really matter. The net result is that foreigners are
getting more of our jobs, and that's as true of offshore jobs as it is of onshore
jobs.
Think about it. Apple has created well over a million jobs, but 90% of them
are outsourced to China. Google may not make phones and tablets, but the vast
majority of Android-enabled mobile devices are manufactured in Asia. Of course,
that's true of nearly every industry, old or new.
We may not face the identical migrant worker problem that the UK has, but
the net result is the same: By giving up more and more jobs we create to foreign-born
immigrants and offshore contractors, that leaves fewer and fewer jobs and increasing
competition for American citizens.
No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism
movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization
get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public
policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully
employed.
Back in 2010, former Intel chairman Andy Grove penned How America Can Create
Jobs. The front-page Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature clearly outlined the perils
of losing our manufacturing muscle and declared the need for public policy that
puts jobs first, even if it does means constraining free trade with tariffs,
trade war be damned.
Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored.
Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and
immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world
doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs
to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted
to exit the EU.
Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology.
The Brits got it right. Will we?
"... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
"... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
"... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
"... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal.
All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations,
estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question --
"war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.
"Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
"... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
"... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
"... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
"... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful
column on the horrors of war last week:
Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which
is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the
road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.
War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to
check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.
War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have
to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably
in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say
they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they
expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to
be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm
have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the
presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.
Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After
being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by
saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all
of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive
interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath
they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms.
They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines"
or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another
country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly
zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in
a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say
anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.
It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness
to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers.
While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks
about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically
don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."
Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency,
the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant
to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern
U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear
our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
"... Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle Sam working over time for the corporate trans border pirates down there. Barry once again has been a conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina. ..."
"... In the making since long before Smedley Butler realized the marines were serving US banks. ..."
Venezuela fundamental transformation proceeds apace ...
the crowd images are impressive
Venezuelans stage mass protest demanding recall to oust
president
"Venezuela's political opposition says Thursday's mass
demonstration - dubbed the "taking of Caracas" - against
President Nicolas Maduro brought one million people into
the streets demanding political change.
Opposition leaders Jesus Torrealba, of the Democratic
Unity Roundtable said it was the "biggest rally in recent
decades" with "between 950,000 and 1.1 million people"
taking part.
Dozens of city blocks were choked with people angry
about growing food shortages and an inflation rate that is
expected to top 700 percent this year.
Maduro led a comparatively small counter rally of
hard-core supporters, many of them state workers. The
number of participants was estimated at fewer than
30,000."
You have dismissed Doug Henwood for some bizarre reason.
He had a good interview on his radio show about the
left in Latin America which was specifically about the
coup in Brazil but talked about a lot more with a
historian of the left in Latin America.
This historian was hopeful despite what has been
happening. There are ebbs and flows but think of the
spontaneous support for Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn or
Podemos or Syriza.
There is real and popular or "organic" organizing of
the left in Latin America against corporate hegemony,
despite the supposed or real corruptions of official
leftist parties like in Brazil.
The left is much more durable than it appears.
There's more than meets the eye.
Paine -> Peter K....
, -1
Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle
Sam working over time for the corporate trans border
pirates down there. Barry once again has been a
conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina.
"... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
"... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be
taken with a grain of salt.
The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led
global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),
So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify
such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.
The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color
revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because
the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but
just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of
the orders from Washington.
That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a
neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal,
cardinal issue of the November elections.
All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse
global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.
As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and
the unpalatable."
I just found this via Hacker News… perhaps it was in yesterday's links and I missed it. Truly
scary in the Orwellian sense and yet another reason not to use a smartphone. Chilling read.
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10 iPhone owners without their knowledge? Gather their
every keystroke, sound, message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup
fee with an Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like
- just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that sell surveillance tools that can capture
all the activity on a smartphone, like a user's location and personal contacts. These tools can
even turn the phone into a secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last month, security
researchers caught its spyware trying to gain access to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican journalist who wrote
about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The New York
Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital surveillance industry operate.
The emails and documents were provided by two people who have had dealings with the NSO Group
but would not be named for fear of reprisals.
I could be wrong, but the promos for Sixty Minutes on the local news make it seem they might
be about this subject. Either way it is another scare you about what your cell phone can do story,
possibly justified this time.
An anecdote which I cannot support with links or other evidence:
A friend of mine used to work for a (non USA) security intelligence service. I was bouncing
ideas off him for a book I'm working on, specifically ideas about how monitoring/electronics/spying
can be used to measure and manipulate societies. He was useful for telling if my ideas (for a
Science Fiction novel) were plausible without ever getting into details. Always very careful to
keep his replies in the "white" world of what any computer security person would know, without
delving into anything classified.
One day we were way out in the back blocks, and I laid out one scenario for him to see if it
would be plausible. All he did was small cryptically, and point at a cell phone lying on a table
10 meters away. He wouldn't say a word on the subject.
It wasn't his cellphone, and we were in a relatively remote region with no cell phone coverage.
It told me that my book idea was far too plausible. It also told me that every cellphone is
likely recording everything all the time, for later upload when back in signal range. (Or at least
there was the inescapable possibility that the cell phones were doing so, and that he had to assume
foreign (or domestic?) agencies could be following him through monitoring of cell phones of friends
and neighbors.)
It was a clarifying moment for me.
Every cellphone has a monumental amount of storage space (especially for audio files). Almost
every cellphone only has a software "switch" for turning it off, not a hardware interlock where
you can be sure off is off. So how can you ever really be sure it is "off"? Answer- you can't
Sobering thought. Especially when you consider the Bluffdale facility in the USA.
"... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
"... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
"... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern
economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive
interview for Katehon
I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have
been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility
of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic
crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted
to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control
over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United
States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all
economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even
a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which
is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers,
which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.
The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries
has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening
of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape
of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out
of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution.
Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction
and to wars.
We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but
the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy,
reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism.
It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state
control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This
should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security
etc.
The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which
has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry,
in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state.
Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy
culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and
participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial
system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to
a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have
today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.
Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a
very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders
have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism
of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving
gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.
The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and
Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they
do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and
Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists
are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization.
This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia
should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very
attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.
"... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
"... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
"... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
"... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
"... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
"... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
"... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
"... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
"... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
"... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is
losing its grip on reality.
Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable
to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.
Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and
placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev
nor in Washington, London, and NATO.
Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories
to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over.
Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.
Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe.
Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being
Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.
Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little
cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared
enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put
their war planes into the air.
This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side
believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.
Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who
do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington
declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms,"
Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington
means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting
in accordance with "international norms."
Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional,
indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.
A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz
Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military
policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's
unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power
to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of" any such country.
Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing.
Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's
foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war
and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists
in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and
Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international
law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints,
and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow
of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with
Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action.
Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries
are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's
14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire
it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in
Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of
whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of
interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims
in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle
East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.
The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.
Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two
most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle
East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot
think strategically do not survive.
The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has
never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.
If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government
is out to lunch.
Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both
governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington
can be a partner.
These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.
Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World
Hegemony.
Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful
of the West to save Planet Earth?
There are dozens of digital spying companies that can
track everything a target does on a smartphone.
Credit
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10
iPhone
owners without their knowledge? Gather their every keystroke, sound,
message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup fee with an
Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like -
just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that
sell surveillance tools
that can capture all the activity on a smartphone, like a
user's location and personal contacts. These tools can even turn the phone into a
secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last
month, security researchers
caught its spyware trying to gain access
to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican
journalist who wrote about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The
New York Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital
surveillance industry operate. The emails and documents were provided by two people
who have had dealings with the NSO Group but would not be named for fear of
reprisals.
The company is one of dozens of digital spying outfits that track everything a target
does on a smartphone. They aggressively market their services to governments and law
enforcement agencies around the world. The industry argues that this spying is
necessary to track terrorists, kidnappers and drug lords. The NSO Group's corporate
mission statement is "Make the world a safe place."
Ten people familiar with the company's sales, who refused to be identified, said that
the NSO Group has a strict internal vetting process to determine who it will sell to.
An ethics committee made up of employees and external counsel vets potential
customers based on human rights rankings set by the World Bank and other global
bodies. And to date, these people all said, NSO has yet to be denied an export
license.
But critics note that the company's spyware has also been used to track journalists
and human rights activists.
"There's no check on this," said Bill Marczak, a senior fellow at the Citizen Lab at
the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs. "Once NSO's systems are
sold, governments can essentially use them however they want. NSO can say they're
trying to make the world a safer place, but they are also making the world a more
surveilled place."
The NSO Group's capabilities are in higher demand now that companies like Apple,
Facebook and Google are using stronger encryption to protect data in their systems,
in the process making it harder for government agencies to track suspects.
The NSO Group's spyware finds ways around encryption by baiting targets to click
unwittingly on texts containing malicious links or by exploiting previously
undiscovered software flaws. It was taking advantage of
three such flaws in Apple software
- since fixed - when it was discovered by
researchers last month.
The cyberarms industry typified by the NSO Group operates in a legal gray area, and
it is often left to the companies to decide how far they are willing to dig into a
target's personal life and what governments they will do business with. Israel has
strict export controls for digital weaponry, but the country has never barred the
sale of NSO Group technology.
Since it is privately held, not much is known about the NSO Group's finances, but its
business is clearly growing. Two years ago, the NSO Group sold a controlling stake in
its business to Francisco Partners, a
private equity
firm based in San Francisco, for $120 million. Nearly a year
later, Francisco Partners was exploring a sale of the company for 10 times that
amount, according to two people approached by the firm but forbidden to speak about
the discussions.
The company's internal documents detail pitches to countries throughout Europe and
multimillion-dollar contracts with Mexico, which paid the NSO Group more than $15
million for three projects over three years, according to internal NSO Group emails
dated in 2013.
"Our intelligence systems are subject to Mexico's relevant legislation and have legal
authorization," Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy in Washington,
said in an emailed statement. "They are not used against journalists or activists.
All contracts with the federal government are done in accordance with the law."
Zamir Dahbash, an NSO Group spokesman, said that the sale of its spyware was
restricted to authorized governments and that it was used solely for criminal and
terrorist investigations. He declined to comment on whether the company would cease
selling to the U.A.E. and Mexico after last week's disclosures.
For the last six years, the NSO Group's main product, a tracking system called
Pegasus, has been used by a growing number of government agencies to target a range
of smartphones - including iPhones, Androids, and BlackBerry and Symbian systems -
without leaving a trace.
Among the Pegasus system's capabilities, NSO Group contracts assert, are the
abilities to extract text messages, contact lists, calendar records, emails, instant
messages and GPS locations. One capability that the NSO Group calls "room tap" can
gather sounds in and around the room, using the phone's own microphone.
Pegasus can use the camera to take snapshots or screen grabs. It can deny the phone
access to certain websites and applications, and it can grab search histories or
anything viewed with the phone's web browser. And all of the data can be sent back to
the agency's server in real time.
In its commercial proposals, the NSO Group asserts that its tracking software and
hardware can install itself in any number of ways, including "over the air stealth
installation," tailored text messages and emails, through public Wi-Fi hot spots
rigged to secretly install NSO Group software, or the old-fashioned way, by spies in
person.
Much like a traditional software company, the NSO Group prices its surveillance tools
by the number of targets, starting with a flat $500,000 installation fee. To spy on
10 iPhone users, NSO charges government agencies $650,000; $650,000 for 10 Android
users; $500,000 for five BlackBerry users; or $300,000 for five Symbian users - on
top of the setup fee, according to one commercial proposal.
You can pay for more targets. One hundred additional targets will cost $800,000, 50
extra targets cost $500,000, 20 extra will cost $250,000 and 10 extra costs $150,000,
according to an NSO Group commercial proposal. There is an annual system maintenance
fee of 17 percent of the total price every year thereafter.
What that gets you, NSO Group documents say, is "unlimited access to a target's
mobile devices." In short, the company says: You can "remotely and covertly collect
information about your target's relationships, location, phone calls, plans and
activities - whenever and wherever they are."
And, its proposal adds, "It leaves no traces whatsoever."
"Commentary: Who is hacking U.S. election databases and why are they so difficult to identify?"
[
Reuters ]. "This summer has been rife with news of election-related hacking. Last month it was
the Democratic National Committee; this week, voter election databases in Illinois and Arizona…
The
FBI has said that government-affiliated Russian hackers are responsible for both intrusions. Yet
the hackers' motivation is unclear. We don't know whether the hackers were engaging in espionage,
attempting to manipulate the election, or just harvesting low-hanging cyber-fruit for their own financial
gain." Well, the FBI is totes apolitical, so that settles that. There are brave Russkis out there.
Let's go kill them!
So much for keeping the military out of politics:
In a joint statement, two Four Star Generals, Bob Sennewald and David Maddox are endorsing
Hillary Clinton for President. Sennewald is the former Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command,
and Maddox was formerly Commander in Chief, U.S. Army- Europe. Clinton spoke at the American Legion
on Wednesday:
"Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army 4- star general, we each have worked
closely with America's strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia. Our votes have always
been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate.
Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only
one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton."
"... A direct approach to the objective exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defenders hold by upsetting his balance." ..."
"... advocated fighting the decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced. ..."
...Liddell Hart wrote Strategy: An Indirect Approach , in which he stated: "In strategy
the longest way around is often the shortest way there. A direct approach to the objective exhausts
the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the
defenders hold by upsetting his balance."
Liddell exhaustively analyzed numerous battles throughout history and advocated fighting the
decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced.
... ... ...
Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the
Israel Defense Forces
' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created"
the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted
of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success." [28] Naveh stated that,
"by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg
formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious
concept he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions
of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that
has taken 40 years to unravel". [29]
"... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
"... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
"... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
"... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
"... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:
The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation,"
and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."
Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait
approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority,
Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.
It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been
doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you
choose as we wish if you will. Go America!
"... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
"... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants. ..."
"... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two
charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
"... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
"... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
"... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and
power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
"... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
"... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago: ..."
"... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking,
posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win." ..."
"... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The
Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly
as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity
of an electron simultaneously. ..."
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies.
During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes
on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something
to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up.
One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was
completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing
the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes,
with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign
plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between
different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree.
With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.
–KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no
doubt well paid consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented
two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing
decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.
This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.
The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money
and power. All else is irrelevant.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between
the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its
very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized
people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer
ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out
loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing
impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could
put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper,
you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about microlending
was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming
together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the
grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass
every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of
networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual
power relations-the ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking
systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully
cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship
to oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections
misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is
Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".
Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess
The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now
seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
Looks like Israel count of IS to serve as a counterbalancing force able to weaken Hezbollah
Notable quotes:
"... A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed ..."
"... Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe. ..."
"... The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West. ..."
"... Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ..."
The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not
its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical
Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran's
quest for regional hegemony.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to
plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State
(IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.
IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate
in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international
attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings
and other means of execution.
But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria
and Iraq showed IS's tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened
militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even
that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group's performance has been less convincing.
When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.
It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over
the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is
what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently
took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they
were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.
A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized
Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving
intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted
concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away –
a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to
come home and cause trouble.
If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a
state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse
of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West.
Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures
the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely
to spare the West several terrorist attacks.
Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional
and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a
caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario
perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy
Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.
The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win
the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots,
might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West's interests
to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing
Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly
that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus
axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.
Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran –
is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests.
A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western
hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.
The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS
are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys
sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less
able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat
moral choice.
The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will
be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable
only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region,
buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our
democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.
Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately,
the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated
the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a "responsible" actor that will, supposedly, fight
IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration's rationale for its nuclear deal
with Iran and central to its "legacy," which is likely to be ill-remembered.
The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful
tool in undermining Tehran's ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus
of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily
or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities
of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
Notable quotes:
"... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
"... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
"... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
"... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
"... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
"... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
"... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
"... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
"... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
"... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
"... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
"... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
"... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
"... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
"... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
"... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
"... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
"... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
"... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
"... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
"... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
"... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
"... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
"... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
"... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best
thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little
Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.
So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon
claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City
and the consequences have been deplorable.
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks
the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the
neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing
would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the
safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir
of Kuwait.
The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled
their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait
was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899
for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a
straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from
the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably
opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side
of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported
1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis
and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.
At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad
debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and
religious fanaticism.
They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge
of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American
(crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the
tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic
surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.
Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus
operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective
leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave
of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the
planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.
And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.
Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the
world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute.
The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity,
and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically
undermined national security.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the
War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in
the middle east and beyond.
Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA
and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan,
had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our
way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their
attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed
against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in
the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that
wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability
from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed
the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.
The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was
wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's
satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks
on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front
as cannon fodder.
Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical
transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department
was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back
in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.
Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime
as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors
in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret
document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war
myth.
To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable
foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.
Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime
minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing
The Realm".
Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and
launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of
historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative
policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential
threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons
back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.
After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government
began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because
the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right
out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare
State.
There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity
to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases
and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.
Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan
era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan
proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war
machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.
The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the
American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex.
At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's
purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and
the needs of veterans of past wars.
Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards
of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet
Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the
planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's
far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted
with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests
had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed
states and economic rubble.
The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its
foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate
for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it
appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed
in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic
coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.
That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial
crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up
that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.
Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been
transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets
no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and
growth.
Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where
business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund
stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive
options.
Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century
has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not
only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles
Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.
And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.
Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White
House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims,
refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out
contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is
just plain nuts.
But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created
celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign
Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers
they coddle.
So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and
political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous
mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself
or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession
already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.
But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that
Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit
the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that
the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either
a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally
right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction
of a stable regime in Libya.
Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim
that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the
time of the next election they will have it released anyway.
Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with
guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on
day one in office.
Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold
war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO
and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore
the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf
out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where
governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.
He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal
zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian
swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank
monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.
When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer,
he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable....
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic
thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect
that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone.
... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect
than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing
notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious
kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from
men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their
worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the
men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even
about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced,
well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently,
like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be
on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely,
but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken
Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers
the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced
or dismantled that easily.
The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and
removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable
of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to
control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself
due to being hollowed out :)
As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and
only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This
is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.
I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American
people to go to war.
So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power.
This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because
the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.
There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran.
There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled
the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP
oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and
the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began
again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one)
Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted
his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap
is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil.
IMO
BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.
We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to
the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that
Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed.
I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted
Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended
that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if
someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about
the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.
SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that
was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica"
safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign
policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.
There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.
You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the
1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious
tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers,
on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King
Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed
to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding,
stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate
threat from Saddam was over.
When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics
who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community.
More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and
elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government
rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.
As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot.
The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons
has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.
In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist
regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control
the perceived enemies of Capitalism.
Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our
closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.
We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's
for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly
expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of
mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.
Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies
on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam
was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving
as his special envoy to the middle east.
@lloydholiday I lived
in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the
deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives
a major headache, much like Europe.
The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and
appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities
(my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue.
They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.
@lloydholiday
Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his
idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may
have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests
from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon
won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man
toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.
As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and
their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who
wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous
game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans
as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed
by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant
today in the middle east and beyond.
Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be
PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.
If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both
parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid
of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding
Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt -
ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians
can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.
@bill5 What I never
hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would
have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to
power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the
islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border
would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell
the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying
about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.
@FreeOregon It will
shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years
of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment,
centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled
by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.
All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed
for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and
liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going
to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was
Trump from here on in!
"... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
"... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
"... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
"... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
"... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
"... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
"... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
"... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
"... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
"... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
"... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
"... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
"... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
"... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
"... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
"... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
"... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
"... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
"... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
"... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
"... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
"... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
"... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
"... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
"... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
"... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
"... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
"... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized
by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through
vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become
our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that
we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative
columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only
their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that
the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.
...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism."
This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President
Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for
international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because
the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented
spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans
have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat
puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...
...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting
some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch
any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness.
But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much
less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's
wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why
should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone
will have to protect peaceful people from predators."
Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything
possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the
greatest danger to our country.
Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any
old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even
as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a
handful of dust.
The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that
they aren't really Americans.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion,
but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even
just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.
On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike
the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political
apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons
than is domestic policy.
By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.
"My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative"
means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."
One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George
W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's,
George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only
to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.
Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First,
the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative
movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard.
Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary.
Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton,
etc., etc.
Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering
on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would
explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to
exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with
the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According
to an account by a former neoconservative:
" For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes
what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the
philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach,
Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians,
could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which
they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable
of understanding it."
Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that
seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe
for Israel.
Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several
that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in
that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.
Their shift to the Republicans
was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under
Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.
I expect
they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally
Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.
Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The
majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending
other people kids to fight their wars.
let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now
in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con
or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry.
Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same
hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding
the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable
way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always
keeps Israel first in his heart.
Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to
remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves
our actions are just.
How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.
What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to
a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas
adventures as an example of very big government.
The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national
security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really
thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all
about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope
of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.
The only thing I said in response was that
he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight
the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college".
I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years
old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires
that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.
Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for
the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world
crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.
All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military
items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar
air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with
box cutters.
Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials,
in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.
Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.
Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A
Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges
of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.
If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people,
the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .
"On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"
True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand
ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social
or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are
met.
Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally
… people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't
send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without
outside support … that's a revolution.
Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you
call that an operation for the people?
Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities
– including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican
party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald
Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.
And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John
Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy
neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed,
losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.
It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as
David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group
has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from
Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.
Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology,
the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into
the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well
say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the
Traitor. Up with the Star.
A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto
mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We
the People"?
I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC
this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two
books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/
In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:
"Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel
is central to their political concerns."
One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss,
and the review makes some consise observations about him.
David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:
"No one who absorbs Vaďsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether
the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist
views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting
in his behalf.
Vaďsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from
his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson
joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles."
It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.
It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They
had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaďsse stresses in particular that they
collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under
the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated.
It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose
in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.
The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle,
they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan
a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly,
many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this
aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless,
some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who
imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain.
"In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's
desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters
as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."
The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors
in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law
of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action
ends at the doors to the Pentagon."
"U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"
Excerpt:
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students
are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation,
and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates
in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very
unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless
and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles,
the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive
and defensive opponent.
"You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."
If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish
between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and
firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi)
and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).
Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure,
in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in
Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who
became more hawkish on foreign policy.
However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck,
etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin,
Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.
They all supported war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all
fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.
What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism"
has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president.
And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying
to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control
the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions
fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!
Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist.
We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.
By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most
non interventionist prez in recent history.
WE HAVE A WINNER!;
'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
Oh, come on guys.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support
the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to
Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly
are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you
change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist
Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?
Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops
in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint,
and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former
democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas
when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%
A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the
social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant
civilization.
You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals."
However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be
practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used
to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?
Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS
like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims-
IS a Neoconservative.
And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we
call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and
philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush
Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman
or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been
hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives
because their ACTIONS define who they are.
They all believe in projecting US military might in
order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.
What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio,
Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.
What I would consider true conservatism
you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the
reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives
and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't
it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration,
all in the name of "defending" the country.
It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative
would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on
his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible
for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see
some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these
steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy
to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.
"... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
"... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
"... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
"... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.
"...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President
Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."
Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme
moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing
knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?
@Noirette Pt1
Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though,
how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice
back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does
Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political
theatre.
The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to
be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be
"behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia
outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.
Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations
carte blanche to bullshit the public.
Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the
public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones
until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.
I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian
government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart
from CNN:
For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like
every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.
You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most
likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely
to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part
of the natural order.
The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now
happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under
any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage
and unlimited oligarchy.
The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli
media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on
Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another
in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air
raids over the Golan Heights."
It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB
were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense
missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain
west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix
on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli
aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting.
Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering
into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.
Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort
to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami
li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly
shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.
The Hungarian billionaire appeared to have a fascination with not just fostering but creating
anti-Putin opposition forces inside of Russia in a bid to destabilize the country.
The recent
DC Leaks document dump of over 2,500 documents from George Soros' Open Society Foundations illustrates
a disturbing trend by the billionaire of using his wealth and influence to sow chaos across the world
in a bid to profit off of global suffering and impose neoliberal ideas on an international scale.
The leaks have already exposed Soros' efforts to destabilize the European Union by promoting
a policy of open borders and mass migration and fracturing Ukraine's government by fomenting an illegal
coup of a democratically elected government using neo-Nazi hardliners. Once dubbed the "puppet
master" by the fanatical Glenn Beck, Soros has also been linked to both corruption in the United
States and, according to some, positive social reform in his funding of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yet the man who has brought regimes around the world to their knees has long wanted to bring
Putin's government crashing down, but has proven unsuccessful time and again. New memos from the
DC Leaks file dump show that this failure to oust Putin wasn't for lack of trying on the part of
Soros. In a November 2012 document titled "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" a team of anti-Putin international experts sat down to discuss how to "identify joint
priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively collaborate,
considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?"
Whereas that seems benign, the document minutes show that the meeting's participants hoped that
Medvedev's years as president would provide "an opening" for the Open Society Foundations to influence
and rattle the Russian government. A hope that disappeared when Putin returned to office.
"The Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs…
However, pressure has come back very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power."
The NGO operation became quickly distrusted in Russia following the botched "Maidan like"
protests which were immediately dismantled before it could threaten the Russian government.
"The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGO's," read the minutes. The meeting explains
that the government had attempted to encourage civil opposition by providing funds, "but by encouraging
self-organization, they had opened up Pandora's Box… the door was opened for self-mobilization."
The document proceeded to provide an extensive bullet point list of "what must be done" in
order to destabilize Russia including working to flood the country with migrants and influencing
the country's media operations.
The memo was followed up with what was called "the Russia Project" which called for identifying
and organizing opponents to Putin, advancing principles of globalism, and undermine Russia's image
in the lead up to the Sochi Winter Olympics.
"... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
OT GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the
way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once
again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that
has killed hundreds of thousands.
After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling
in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.
Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the
ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces,
the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by
the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and
mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.
The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely
become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops
across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.
Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps
to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain
unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming
days, he said. ``` Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to
separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters
who hold parts of northwest Syria.
"We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which
is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."
Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable
after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this
year.
The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of
the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for
the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
``` In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret. ``` And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes
the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces,
Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been
involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate
opposition forces. ~~~ At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon
has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it
has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call
for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.
U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar
Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and
concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by
what has become a largely ignored truce.
For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder
on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change
is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent
and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around
the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed
Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.
Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus
suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday
after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in
ruins.
The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad,
marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat
of power.
Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
Re: Geneva negotiations...
Love the goto clause:
"In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret."
Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't
immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play
hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms,
it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons?
that's the answer to that bs...
as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance
with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along
with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the
usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi
arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists
that they are...
What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression?
The system it feeds on decays and collapses.
Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II
Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart
it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but
requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.
The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the
Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires
stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.
The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.
The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate
wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth
and power that defines the elite.
So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the
financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.
What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions,
wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political,
social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.
Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever
factions they see as the source of instability.
The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens
are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme
wealth/power inequality.
Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look
at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?
"... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
"... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
"... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
"... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments
sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547
pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by
Hillary Clinton.
The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as
a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February
29, 2016.
A letter from
Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was
losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going
to wrong hands through the black market.
The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute
chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save
themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Key parts:
During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan
rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned
that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb
(AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya,
to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals
fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO
and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar
al Qaddafi.
These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the
week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External
Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired
about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal
weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for
sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms
dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious
threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern
Mauritania.
(Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned
that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of
Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment
again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that
AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time
when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across
North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals
in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step
in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by
Western tourists.
Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia
to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not
a top priority issue for them.
Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who
think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her
mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers
that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how
can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just
a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could
be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started
in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally
racist. T
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that
I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the
US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological
loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or
will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they
will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence
of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late
this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or
they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront
him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does
all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex
with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like
me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused
Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics
of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American
people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate
America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will
become America's next President.
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending
Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians -
no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show
such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success
of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue).
It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother
lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel
Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time.
We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These
snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going
to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and
Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less
democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power
platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender
confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps
the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year
after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty
back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party
that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors
and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as
a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset
and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?"
Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed
across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian
cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia
like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter
in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton
Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is
her crowds are tiny.
You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority
and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had
the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions
who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell
cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to
make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be
friends.
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced
a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts
by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism
be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary
violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
'My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the
defense industry than Trump is'
Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies-such as Lockheed
Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon-are choosing to fill the coffers of
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP
nominee Donald Trump.
That's
according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday
and based on federal campaign finance filings.
Indeed, Politico found that Clinton-whose
hawkish tendencies have been
front-and-center during the
2016 campaign-is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign
donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and
General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense
contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to
President Barack Obama."
Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to
Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also
include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just
two," Politico adds.
It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.
"My view is Hillary is
far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense
industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson-who ran the U.S. branch of British
defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from
2009 to 2014-told Politico.
And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we
have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."
Signs abound
pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile
wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the
State Department. She really
likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the
military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style
interventionism creates."
Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry
declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no
inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."
Parry quoted the New York Times as
calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring
their hopes."
And defense contractors, too, it seems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License
"... My personal prejudice is that with the removal of sanctions that much of Iran's production increase eventually will be gobbled up by domestic use – their population seems to be too large for it to be otherwise. ..."
Nick , "KSA, for instance, is already using more per capita than almost
anyone."
Is that really true? Does that include all the amounts that run through
its refineries and chemical plants for export? I casually observe that Iran,
with many more people, uses much less. Iran has no substantial refineries,
etc. But, they appear to have much more military/industrial capability.
Maybe someone here knows of a reference that discusses the uses of oil
by KSA viz-a-viz the uses by Iran. My personal prejudice is that with
the removal of sanctions that much of Iran's production increase eventually
will be gobbled up by domestic use – their population seems to be too large
for it to be otherwise.
Does that include all the amounts that run through its refineries and
chemical plants for export?
It just includes domestic consumption. Iran prices gasoline somewhere
near it's market price, while KSA greatly underprices it for domestic consumers.
Iran uses a lot of CNG for personal transportation, I believe.
KSA uses oil for electrical generation, which is ridiculous – it's far
more expensive. But, that's the political power of legacy industries…
"... The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. ..."
"... The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization. ..."
"... The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments… ..."
"... We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy. Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities. ..."
"... Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document. ..."
"... Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil society players necessary for their long-term success. ..."
"... Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag, for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up… ..."
"... Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country. ..."
"... Vlad, smoke this Globalist scum. American people will cheer you! ..."
"... MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days. ..."
The recent
DC Leaks , of over 2,500 documents from George Soros NGOs, has shed a bright light on how the
billionaire uses his vast wealth to create global chaos in an never ending push to deliver his neo-liberal
euphoria to the peasant classes.
While Soros has managed to thoroughly destabilise the European Union by promoting mass immigration
and open borders, divided the United States by actively funding Black Lives Matters and corrupting
the very corruptible US political class, and destroyed Ukraine by pushing for an illegal coup of
a democratically elected government using neo-nazi strong men… one country that Soros has not bee
able to crack has been The Russian Federation.
Russia's political pragmatism and humanist value system rooted in a traditional, "nation-state"
culture most likely infuriates Soros.
Russia is Soros' white whale... a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for nearly
a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised
the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures…which in hindsight,
and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move.
Russian Prosecutor
General's Office issued a statement in which it recognized George Soros's Open Society Institute
and another affiliated organization as "undesirable groups", banning Russian citizens and organizations
from participation in any of their projects.
–prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute
Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national
security . They added that the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions
and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable foreign organizations.
According to RT , prosecutors launched a probe into the activities of the two organizations
– both sponsored by the well-known US financier George Soros – in July this year, after Russian
senators approved the so-called "patriotic stop-list" of 12 groups that required immediate attention
over their supposed anti-Russian activities.
The Law on Undesirable Foreign Organizations came into force in early June this year. It requires
the Prosecutor General's Office and the Foreign Ministry to draw up an official list of undesirable
foreign organizations and outlaw their activities. Once a group is recognized as undesirable,
its assets in Russia must be frozen, its offices closed and the distribution of any of its materials
must be banned. That said, it is doubtful that Soros still has any active assets in Russia – his
foundation, which emerged in Russia in its early post-USSR years in the mid-1990s, wrapped up
active operations in 2003 when Putin cemented his control on power.
The huge document tranche released by DC Leaks
shows how dangerous the Open Society and George Soros were to the well being and preservation
of the Russian Federation and the Russian culture.
In a document from November 2012 entitled, "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" , Participants:
Leonard Benardo, Iva Dobichina, Elizabeth Eagen, Jeff Goldstein, Minna Jarvenpaa, Ralf Jürgens,
Elena Kovalevskaya, Vicki Litvinov, Tanya Margolin, Amy McDonough, Sara Rhodin, Yervand Shirinyan,
Becky Tolson
Discuss how to …
Identify joint priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively
collaborate, considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?
The main revelation of the document minutes comes from the hope that Medvedev's years as president
would provide the NGOs the "opening" they would need to finally break the Russian bear.
That all evaporated in 2012, when Vladimir Putin returned to the President's office.
The OSF, clearly distraught and disappointed, begins to lay down the groundwork for how to challenge
the Putin administration, in light of his very different approach to dealing with NGOs like the Open
Society Foundation.
The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed
for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. Amendments to the NGO law in 2006
led to campaigning on behalf of NGOs; many of our grantees benefited during this period. Surkov
established ties with many groups that were willing to cooperate with the state and our partners
served as experts in key processes like police reform . A space was created for modernization
and for the inclusion of civil society during Medvedev's term. However, pressure has come back
very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power.
A major turning point for NGO operation in Russia came with the botched Russian "Maidan like"
protests, which were promptly dismantled before any damage could be inflicted.
The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for
self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by
encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began
to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization.
The state has responded with repression and political prisoners, in order to instill fear in
the population. The state is also working to undermine social support for the protests. Its support
of socially-oriented ("good") NGOs is a way to divide the community, while the foreign agents
law frames the protests as foreign money undermining Russia.
Why the fascination with Russia? Why is it important for OSF to focus on Russia? With Russia comes
immense wealth and tremendous geo-political power.
Key open society themes and issues are highly relevant in Russia
– Transparency and accountability (anticorruption)
– Rights and justice (i.e., criminal justice, policing, rule of law, LGBT, women's rights)
– Migration
– Inclusive education (disability, Roma)
– Media freedom, access to information
– Health (access to medicines, HIV, harm reduction)
Copy-cat problem: Russian tactics are picked up by Central Asia (ie, anti-extremism law in
Kazakhstan)
Russia's influence in UN Human Rights Council – pushing resolution that says human rights should
take into consideration traditional values of country in question – very few HR orgs that are
following the council saw this coming – has large implications beyond Russia
Participation in global international regimes (G20, ICC, WTO) – a more open Russia creates
changes in international governing bodies
European Court litigation
The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia,
focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn
governments…
– Political prisoners (Bolotnaya, etc.)
– Media censorship and control (pressure in independent media – work w/ NMP)
– Surveillance
– LGBT (push against propaganda laws, which are driven by local officials, not by the federal
gov't)
– Women's rights
– Disability rights and inclusive education
Prisons
– Lots of funding is going to monitoring; where is our money best placed?
– ONKs don't have sufficient $ for travel and legal representation
Policing and police violence (Public Verdict, Man and Law, etc.)
Migrants
Transparency and accountability
– State spending – monitoring, analysis
– Tracking cross-border transactions and business purchases
– Connections between accountability, human rights, and ordinary citizens' interests
Following the 2012 document, and the apparent disappointment expressed by OSF members at Russia's
resistance to the neo-liberal way of life,
DC Leaks provides a follow up memo entitled, "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017".
The document summary…
Russia today faces a regrettable backsliding into authoritarian practice. Confronted with serious
domestic challenges, the regime has become more insular and isolationist, seeking to solidify
its base. The progressively draconian laws promulgated since Putin's return to the presidency
have placed all foreign- funded organizations under threat of isolation and disrepute. Despite
these decidedly challenging conditions, it is essential that we continue to engage Russia, both
to preserve its extant democratic spaces, and to ensure that Russian voices do not go dark on
the broader global stage.
The destabilization of Russia, now aptly named, "the Russia Project" goes on to identify three
cornerstone concepts…
Amid the grim landscape, there nonetheless remain apertures for the Russia Project's intervention.
Exploiting all available opportunities, we will undertake the following three concepts, which
we deem vital in the current climate:
1) We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy.
Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's
regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge
of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities.
2) We will integrate Russian voices into the global exchange of ideas. Given that Russian intellectuals,
practitioners and activists are increasingly sidelined domestically, and academics are often isolated
from the international community, we will support venues for inserting diverse, critical Russian
thinking into the global discourse. Such opportunities allow Russian actors to enter into mutually
beneficial collaborations on topics ranging from migration to digital activism, thus maintaining
their relevance and reducing their provincialization.
3) We aim to mainstream the rights and dignity of one of Russia's most marginalized populations:
LGBT individuals. The RP's diverse network of partners provides an opportunity to build a broader
base of civil society allies at a time when the LGBT community is under profound threat. We hope
to see a more balanced discourse on LGBT rights among the Russian public, as well as a strong
cohort of mainstream independent organizations actively incorporating LGBT interests into their
work.
Social mobilisation and the funding of alternative media networks, to promote social discourse
and dissatisfaction, are common tactics that Soros NGOs uses to build up towards a revolution.
Along with these initiatives, we remain committed to supporting three primary fields: (a) access
to justice and legal empowerment of marginalized groups, (b) access to independent information
and alternative media, and (c) platforms for critical debate, discussion, and social mobilization.
The RP plans to provide core support to our trusted partners in each of these fields, investing
in their growth and development, and remaining flexible about the funding arrangements necessary
to allow them to continue their essential work. We also seek to strengthen their legitimacy and
financial sustainability, in order to build a more transparent, effective, and organizationally
efficient third sector.
Russia is currently in a gradual, arbitrary, and haphazard process of becoming more closed.
Amid this background, the RP's cardinal role is to create a dense and wide-ranging field of independent
civil society actors, who can in the best case help set the agenda for a more open and democratic
future in Russia, and in the worst case survive the effects of new draconian legislation.
Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community
through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document.
The media focus on LGBT rights in the run up to the Sochi winter Olympics was an opportunity not
to be missed by Soros.
In the short to mid-term, the RP aims to engender broader civil society support for this highly
marginalized group. Even though the "propaganda of homosexuality" law has gained unprecedented
international attention in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, the voices of Russian
activists are barely being heard over larger international LGBT organizations. We want to make
sure that our Russian partners have a leading role in shaping the strategy of the international
movement, that planned campaigns have a domestic rather than just an international focus, and
that the momentum gathering around Sochi does not dissipate immediately after the Olympics end.
Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past
years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT
rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet
they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil
society players necessary for their long-term success.
Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag,
for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up…
Given the large number of grants in the RP portfolio, we see a need for additional staffing
in order to implement our strategic priorities and effectively monitor our activities. However,
as a number of programs in the Eurasia region are being restructured, we are awaiting the results
of this transition before making any substantive recommendations.
Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff
growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these
divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country.
They have a warrant out for his arrest if he ever steps foot in Russia (highly unlikely). If I
remember correctly another country does also.
MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths
in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days.
"... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
"... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
"[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous
amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia
Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico].
"While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard
as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether
the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!
"Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz,
New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of
those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in
domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest
debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and
consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs
tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But
until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of
countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade
agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."
CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd
been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you."
What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He
repeated it over and over" [Mother
Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.
"When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to
TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a
political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an
advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade
deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall
Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look
bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with
lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.
"... The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law. ..."
"... The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL? ..."
"... The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either. ..."
"... American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges ..."
"... On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit. ..."
This is all about securing that pipeline route that the West hopes that it can some day build
from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The US now claims that part of Syrian territory is their own
and it will be used to build that pipeline.
There is one accurate statement in there. The last one in the article. It's endgame time.
The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get
its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds
in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and
I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law.
But at the same time, Russia is legally in Syria, and I am sure it is not going to allow the
USA to tell it where it can and cannot fly in Syria. If the USA is really ready to go to war in
Syria, it is going to get it. And I don't think I have to point out to you the kind of logistic
nightmare it would be, especially if it can no longer count on Turkey. And I find it hard to believe
Erdogan will come on board with the USA carving out a Kurdish homeland right next door. Washington
is getting desperate, and that's making it act crazy. Let's see what China says about it.
The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in
another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security
Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL?
What's the USA got in Syria for anti-air systems? Russia has the S-400, and can cover most
of Syria without even putting one of its own planes in the air.
The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside
of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law
does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used
against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either.
Well, I guess we'll just have to see how it shakes out, won't we? I can tell you that if Syrian
forces come knocking to drive out ISIS from other towns after Aleppo falls, and the USAF says
it is going to stop them because its forces are mixed with ISIS in the town (remember, American
Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges) it
is going to cut no ice with the Syrians – it's their country.
On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press
tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want
to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally
impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China
will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had
what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect
its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit.
She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial
oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,'
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington
Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state
(Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance,"
so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)
UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably
Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled
county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding
the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and
yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest
in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly
disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more
opportunities exist for violations'" [The
Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like
a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them,
none of this would be happening.
"... Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University. ..."
Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the "global Balkans," the US government has
worked closely with major NGOs to "promote democracy" and "freedom" in former Soviet republics, playing
a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed "colour revolutions," which install US and
Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.
Part 2 of this essay on "The Origins of World War III" analyzes the colour revolutions as being
a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The "colour revolution" or "soft" revolution
strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia
and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order:
to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.
These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which
the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their
despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian
imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest
movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to
mobilize the mass protest movements to demand "their" candidate be put into power. It just so happens
that "their" candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily
financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions.
In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is
denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.
The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it
places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek
closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west
and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the
two blocs.
Serbia
Serbia experienced its "colour revolution" in October of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian
leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000, from 1999 on, the
US undertook a major "electoral strategy" to oust Milosevic, as "U.S.-funded consultants played a
crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking
polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel
vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl
anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished,"
which became the revolution's catchphrase." Further, according to Michael Dobbs,writing in the Washington
Post, some "20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation from the Washington-based National Democratic
Institute (NDI) in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest."
Interestingly, "Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA
activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever
it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's foreign assistance agency, which
channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican
counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI)."
The NDI (National Democratic Institute), "worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI
focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational backbone.
In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the
Hilton Hotel in Budapest." At the seminar, "the Serbian students received training in such matters
as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine
the authority of a dictatorial regime."[1]
As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition group, had a steady flow of
money coming from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded "democracy promoting"
organization. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave money to Otpor,
as did the International Republican Institute, "another nongovernmental Washington group financed
partly by A.I.D."[2]
Georgia
In 2003, Georgia went through its "Rose Revolution," which led to the overthrow of president Eduard
Shevardnadze, replacing him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November 2003
article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US based foundation "began laying the brickwork
for the toppling of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze," as funds from his non-profit organization
"sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor
(Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic.
Then, in the summer," the "foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran
three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution."
This US-based foundation "also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial
in mobilizing support for [the] 'velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to
a youth group that led the street protests." The owner of the foundation "has a warm relationship
with Mr. Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected
to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4."
During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze said that the US foundation
"is set against the President of Georgia." Moreover, "Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received
money from both [the financier's foundation] and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says
three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's National
Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group
that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking
government corruption." [3]
The day following the publication of the previously quoted article, the author published another
article in the Globe and Mail explaining that the "bloodless revolution" in Georgia "smells more
like another victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international chess game."
The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall lied "in the oil under
the Caspian Sea, one of the world's few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,"
as "Georgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just
as newly independent countries, but as part of an 'energy corridor'." Plans were drawn up for a massive
"pipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean." It is worth quoting MacKinnon
at length:
When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset by both Western investors and
the U.S. government. His reputation as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense
of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move Georgia out of Russia's orbit and
into Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union played
well at the U.S. State Department.
The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a military base in the country [in
2001] to give Georgian soldiers "anti-terrorist" training. They were the first U.S. troops to set
up in a former Soviet republic.
But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course and decided to once more embrace
Russia. This summer, Georgia signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant Gazprom
its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the electricity grid to another Russian firm,
cutting out AES, the company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal. Mr. Shevardnadze
attacked AES as "liars and cheats." Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.
Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to
the Presidency and "won the day."[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship between
oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution was vital in pressing US and NATO interests
forward in the region; gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia from expanding
its influence. This follows directly in line with the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world
order, following the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail in Part 1 of this
essay: An Imperial Strategy for
a New World Order: The Origins of World War III].
Ukraine
In 2004, Ukraine went through its "Orange Revolution," in which opposition and pro-Western leader
Viktor Yushchenko became President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed in 2004,
that following the disputed elections (as happens in every "colour revolution"), "the democracy guerrillas
of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome
of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev," however, "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated
and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries
in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."
The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, "Funded and organised by the US government, deploying
US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations,
the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot
box." Further, "The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International
Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots
campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO" and the same billionaire financier involved in Georgia's
Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change strategy, "The usually fractious oppositions have
to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That
leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American."
Traynor continues:
Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional
election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised
exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for
much of what has followed.
The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle
with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on
the authorities to respond.
The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost
election.
[. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to
power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience,
which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.[5]
As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko,
who disputed the election results, "served as prime minister under the outgoing president, Leonid
Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's
post-Soviet privatization." He further explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as "The
decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent
are considered more 'pro-western' or 'pro-market'." In other words, those who support a neoliberal
economic agenda will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their established international
economic order and advances their interests in the region.
Moreover, "In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups
which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites. More
provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls." This is emblematic of the
strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States, "which refuses to abandon its cold war
policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side."[6]
One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media coverage: "Two million
anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a
few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be 'the people', while the Ukrainian police,
courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression." It was also explained
that, "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich,
but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are
denigrated as having been 'bussed in'. The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser
lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities
of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous."[7]
In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, "The Bush administration has spent more than $65
million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition
leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he
won last month's disputed runoff election." The money, they state, "was funneled through organizations
such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized
election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets." However, even government
officials "acknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the
Russian-backed government candidate."
The report stated that some major international foundations funded the exit polls, which according
to the incumbent leader were "skewed." These foundations included "The National Endowment for Democracy,
which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from
the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation," which receives money from the same billionaire
financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State Department is involved, that implies
that this funding is quite directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. "Other countries involved
included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark." Also involved
in funding certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International Republican Institute
and the National Democratic Institute, which was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright
at the time.[8]
Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of "People Power," describing it in relation
to the situation that was then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, "The upheaval in Ukraine
is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of western
cold war-era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and
the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order."
Almond elaborated:
"Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989′s velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers
– and, let's be frank, spies – co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking
foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars
to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral"
Sweden.
[ ...] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia
vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded "independent" media to get them on the streets.
No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution
and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.
As Almond delicately put it, "People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating
an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in
everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are
renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian
methods to grasp the levers of power."[9]
As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too, supported the efforts of the youth
activist group, Pora, in the Ukraine, providing funding for the "people power democracy" movement.
As MacKinnon noted, "The Bush administration was particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as
president to ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the Black Sea to Brody on
the Polish border." However, "The outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow
so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea
region ship their product to Europe." As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from western nations
came from Canada, although this was eventually far surpassed in amount by the United States.
Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in 2004, "began to organize secret
monthly meetings of Western ambassadors, presiding over what he called "donor co-ordination" sessions
among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's
spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control." Canada
further "invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov
Centre and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich had won."
Once the new, pro-Western government was in, it "announced its intention to reverse the flow of the
Odessa-Brody pipeline."[10]
Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests are met through
the success of the "colour revolution"; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion and influence
from spreading in the region as well as advancing US and NATO control and influence over the major
resources and transport corridors of the region.
Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, "For most of the people gathered in Kiev's Independence
Square, the demonstration felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government
candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took the chance that was offered to
them. But walking through the encampment last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous
preparation – the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators, the slickness of the concert, the
professionalism of the TV coverage, the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked."
He elaborated, writing, "the events in the square were the result of careful, secret planning by
Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution is far
more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted."
Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko's campaign manager, two years prior to the 2004 elections, "put as
many as 150,000 people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and
media specialists. Some attending these courses were members of election committees at local, regional
and national level; others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to watch out for
but given camcorders to record it on video. More than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim
of recording events at every third polling station." Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned
public relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic
"people power" notion applied to the "peaceful coup" in the western media.[11]
The "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan
In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its "Tulip Revolution" in which the incumbent was replaced by the
pro-Western candidate through another "popular revolution." As the New York Times reported in March
of 2005, shortly before the March elections, "an opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial
home under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off
widespread outrage and a popular revolt." However, this "newspaper was the recipient of United States
government grants and was printed on an American government-financed printing press operated by Freedom
House, an American organization that describes itself as 'a clear voice for democracy and freedom
around the world'."
Moreover, other countries that have "helped underwrite programs to develop democracy and civil
society" in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively "played
a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition politicians
to power." Money mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), as well as through "the Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster." The National Democratic Institute
also played a major financing role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial aid
said, "It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help."
The Times further reported that:
"American money helps finance civil society centers around the country where activists and citizens
can meet, receive training, read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet in
some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates 20 centers that provide news summaries
in Russian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.
The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan, whose stated mission is, in
part, to promote the development of civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students
and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States. Kyrgyzstan's new prime minister,
Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.
All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition financing and moral support
in recent years, as well as the infrastructure that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz
people."
As for those "who did not read Russian or have access to the newspaper listened to summaries of
its articles on Kyrgyz-language Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty." Other "independent" media was paid for courtesy of the US State
Department.[12]
As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition groups, NGOs and "independent"
media in Kyrgyzstan were getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as well as the
US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Journal reported that, "To avoid provoking Russia
and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it
underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections
almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes."
As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan "occupies a strategic location. The U.S. and Russia
both have military bases here. The country's five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched
in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose regime tolerates little political dissent;
dictatorial Uzbekistan, which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan."
In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, gets its
funding "from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit
funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID." Other agencies reported to be involved, either through
funding or ideological-technical promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US State Department.[13]
President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a "third force" gaining power in his country.
The term was borrowed from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as "third force" is:
"… which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and
policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in
the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003
and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in
the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the
western hemisphere."
As the Guardian reported:
"Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern
Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted
in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua:
"supporting democracy".
Further:
"The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James
Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing
press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described
as an "independent" press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican
senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The
US also supports opposition radio and TV."[14]
So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union.
This US foreign-policy strategy of promoting "soft revolution" is managed through a network of American
and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances NATO and, in particular, US interests in the
region.
Conclusion
The soft revolutions or "colour revolutions" are a key stratagem in the New World Order; advancing,
through deceptions and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling key resources.
This strategy is critical to understanding the imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially
when it comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically in relation to the Iranian
elections of 2009.
Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order,
following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia
and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon,
serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the US
imperial strategy of using "colour revolutions" to advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern
Europe, following along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia and China from
expanding influence and gaining access to key natural resources.
The third and final part to this essay analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct
a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America,
Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with
China and Russia. In particular, its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing
nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks at the potential for "A New World
War for a New World Order."
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization
(CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against
dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol
supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state.
One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness
to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.
Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators.
He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and
destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq.
Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.
As for Trump
proposing
"another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting
a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be
a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.
"Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the
world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim
Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with
the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with
Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability
throughout the region.
"Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true
constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational
hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for
America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very
unprincipled - and careless - individual.
All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol
and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided
America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised
to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported
this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.
I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing
that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry
now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and
an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the
only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces
intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to
not be easily forgiven.
"... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
"... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
"... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
"... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it
was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.
Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of
the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred
to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake"
and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning
the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket
at the Boeing by mistake.
What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist
militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such
a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos
and videos.
Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never
know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were
responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could
be anyone.
It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward
Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager
baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat
too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception
and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves
now. Fascinating, nonetheless.
But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?
The translation reads:
Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian
anti-aircraft operatives…
Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if
they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized
by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .
"... Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships, and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States. ..."
"... I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean, and Philippine dictatorships felt. ..."
"... Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and created a non-aligned movement , which sought to thread a way between the Scylla and Charybdis of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's President Josip Broz Tito. ..."
Posted on
August 22, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here. This article by Rebecca Gordon does a fine job of calling out the recklessness
and disregard for the law of a group of foreign policy "experts" who signed a letter calling Trump
unfit for office. But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication,
Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with the policies that these experts represent, so how
exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make a case, not just assert superiority in the face of facts
she presents that indicate otherwise. Gordon tries arguing for Manafort as proof that Trump is tainted.
But Manafort was a recent hire and has just been dispatched, while long-term Clinton key player John
Podesta's firm
also appears to have advised pro-Russia parties in Ukraine .
It's not every day that Republicans publish an
open letter announcing that their presidential candidate is unfit for office. But lately this
sort of thing has been
happening more and more
frequently . The most recent example: we just
heard from 50 representatives of the national security apparatus, men - and a few women - who
served under Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. All of them are very worried
about Donald Trump.
They think we should be alerted to the fact that the Republican standard-bearer "lacks the character,
values, and experience to be president."
That's true of course, but it's also pretty rich, coming from this bunch. The letter's signers
include, among others, the man who was Condoleezza Rice's
legal advisor when
she ran the National Security Council (John Bellinger III); one of George W. Bush's
CIA directors
who also ran the National Security Agency (Michael Hayden); a Bush administration
ambassador to the United
Nations and Iraq (John Negroponte); an
architect of the neoconservative
policy in the Middle East adopted by the Bush administration that led to the invasion of Iraq, who
has since served as president of the World Bank (Robert Zoellick). In short, given the history
of the "global war on terror," this is your basic list of potential American war
criminals.
Their letter continues, "He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world."
There's a sentence that could use some unpacking.
What Is The "Free World"?
Let's start with the last bit: "the leader of the free world." That's what journalists used to
call the U.S. president, and occasionally the country as a whole, during the Cold War. Between the
end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the "free world" included all the English-speaking
countries outside Africa, along with western Europe, North America, some South American dictatorships,
and nations like the Philippines that had a neocolonial relationship with the United States.
The U.S.S.R. led what, by this logic, was the un-free world, including the
Warsaw Pact countries in
eastern Europe, the "captive" Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the People's Republic
of China (for part of the period), North Korea, and of course Cuba. Americans who grew up in these
years knew that the people living behind the "
Iron Curtain " were not
free. We'd seen the bus ads and public service announcements on television requesting donations for
Radio Free Europe , sometimes illustrated with
footage of a pale adolescent
man, his head crowned with chains.
I have absolutely no doubt that he and his eastern European countrymen were far from free. I do
wonder, however, how free his counterparts in the American-backed Brazilian, Argentinian, Chilean,
and Philippine dictatorships felt.
The two great adversaries, together with the countries in their spheres of influence, were often
called the First and Second Worlds. Their rulers treated the rest of the planet - the Third World
- as a chessboard across which they moved their proxy armies and onto which they sometimes targeted
their missiles. Some countries in the Third World refused to be pawns in the superpower game, and
created a non-aligned
movement , which sought to thread a way between the
Scylla and Charybdis
of the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Among its founders were some of the great Third World nationalists: Sukarno of Indonesia, Jawaharlal
Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, along with Yugoslavia's
President Josip Broz Tito.
Other countries weren't so lucky. When the United States took over from France the (unsuccessful)
project of defeating Vietnam's anti-colonial struggle, people in the U.S. were assured that the war
that followed with its massive bombing, napalming, and Agent-Oranging of a peasant society represented
the advance of freedom against the forces of communist enslavement. Central America also served as
a Cold War battlefield, with Washington fighting proxy wars during the 1980s in Guatemala, El Salvador,
and Nicaragua, where poor campesinos had insisted on being treated as human beings and were
often brutally murdered for their trouble. In addition, the U.S. funded, trained, and armed a military
dictatorship in Honduras, where John Negroponte - one of the anti-Trump letter signers - was the
U.S. ambassador from 1981 to 1985.
The Soviet Union is, of course, long gone, but the "free world," it seems, remains, and so American
officials still sometimes refer to us as its leader - an expression that only makes sense, of course,
in the context of dual (and dueling) worlds. On a post-Soviet planet, however, it's hard to know
just what national or geographic configuration constitutes today's "un-free world." Is it (as Donald
Trump might have it) everyone living under Arab or Muslim rule? Or could it be that amorphous phenomenon
we call "terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" that can sometimes reach into the "free world" and slaughter
innocents as in
San Bernardino
, California,
Orlando
, Florida, or Nice
, France? Or could it be the old Soviet Union reincarnated in Vladimir Putin's Russia or even
a rising capitalist China still controlled by a Communist Party?
Faced with the loss of a primary antagonist and the confusion on our planet, George W. Bush was
forced to downsize the perennial enemy of freedom from Reagan's old "
evil empire " (the Soviet
Union) to three "rogue states," Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, which in an address to Congress he so
memorably labeled the " axis
of evil ." The first of these lies in near ruins; the second we've recently signed a nuclear
treaty with; and the third seems incapable of even feeding its own population. Fortunately for the
free world, the Bush administration also had some second-string enemies to draw on. In 2002, John
Bolton, then an undersecretary of state (and later ambassador to the U.N.), added another group "beyond
the axis of evil" - Libya, Syria, and Cuba. Of the three, only Cuba is still a functioning nation.
And by the way, the 50 Republican national security stars who denounced Donald Trump in Cold War
terms turn out to be in remarkably good company - that of Donald Trump himself (who recently gave
a speech
invoking American Cold War practices as the basis for his future foreign policy).
"He Weakens U.S. Moral Authority "
After its
twenty-first century wars , its "
black sites
," and
Guantánamo
, among other developments of the age, it's hard to imagine a much weaker "moral authority" than
what's presently left to the United States. First, we gave the world eight years of George W. Bush's
illegal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as CIA torture sites, "enhanced
interrogation techniques," and a program of quite illegal
global kidnappings of terror suspects (
some of whom proved
innocent
of anything). Under President Obama, it seems we've traded enhanced interrogation techniques for
an "enhanced" use of
assassination by drone (again outside any "law" of war, other than the
legal documents that the Justice Department has produced to justify such acts).
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009 his first
executive order outlawed the CIA's torture program and closed those black sites. It then looked
as if the country's moral fiber might be stiffening. But when it came to holding the torturers accountable,
Obama insisted
that the country should "look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and the Justice Department
declined to prosecute any of them. It's hard for a country to maintain its moral authority in
the world when it refuses to exert that authority at home.
Two of the letter signers who are so concerned about Trump's effect on U.S. moral authority themselves
played special roles in "weakening" U.S. moral authority through their involvement with the CIA torture
program: John Bellinger III and Michael Hayden.
June 26th is the U.N.'s International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. To mark that day in
2003, President Bush issued a statement declaring, "Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity
everywhere. The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture, and we are leading
this fight by example."
The Washington Post story on the president's
speech also carried a quote from Deputy White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to the effect
that all prisoners being held by the U.S. government were being treated "humanely." John Rizzo, who
was then the CIA's deputy general counsel, called John Bellinger, Condoleezza Rice's legal counsel
at the National Security Council, to express his concern about what both the president and McClellan
had said.
The problem was that - as Rizzo and his boss, CIA director George Tenet, well knew - many detainees
then held by the CIA were not being treated humanely. They were being tortured or mistreated
in various ways. The CIA wanted to be sure that they still had White House backing and approval for
their "enhanced interrogation" program, because they didn't want to be left holding the bag if the
truth came out. They also wanted the White House to stop talking about the humane treatment of prisoners.
According to an internal CIA
memo , George Tenet convened a July 29, 2003, meeting in Condoleezza Rice's office to get the
necessary reassurance that the CIA would be covered if the truth about torture came out. There, Bellinger
reportedly apologized on behalf of the administration, explaining that the White House press secretary
had "gone off script," mistakenly reverting to "old talking points." He also "undertook to [e]nsure
that the White House press office ceases to make statements on the subject other than [to say] that
the U.S. is complying with its obligations under U.S. law."
At that same meeting, Tenet's chief counsel, Scott Muller, passed out packets of printed PowerPoint
slides detailing those enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, so that Bellinger
and the others present, including Rice, would understand exactly what he was covering up.
So much for the "moral authority" of John Bellinger III.
As for Michael Hayden (who has held several offices in the national security apparatus), one
of his signature acts as CIA Director was to approve in 2005 the destruction of videotapes of the
agency's waterboarding sessions. In a
letter to CIA employees,
he wrote that the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence
value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."
Of course destroying those tapes also meant that they'd never be available for any future legislative
or judicial inquiry. The letter continued,
"Beyond their lack of intelligence value the tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever
to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing
them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaeda and its sympathizers."
One has to wonder whether Hayden was more concerned with his CIA colleagues' "security" from al-Qaeda
or from prosecution. In any case, he deprived the public - and any hypothetical future prosecutor
- of crucial evidence of wrongdoing.
Hayden also perpetuated the
lie that the Agency's first waterboarding victim, Abu Zubaydah - waterboarded a staggering 83
times - was a crucial al-Qaeda operative and had provided a quarter of all the information that the
CIA gathered from human subjects about al-Qaeda. He was, in fact, never a member of al-Qaeda at all.
In the 1980s, he ran a training camp in Afghanistan for the mujahedin , the force the U.S.
supported against the Soviet occupation of that country; he was, that is, one of Ronald Reagan's
"
freedom fighters ."
Bellinger later chimed in, keeping the Abu Zubaydah lie alive by arguing in 2007 on behalf of
his boss Condoleezza Rice that Guantánamo should remain open. That prison, he said, "serves a very
important purpose, to hold and detain individuals who are extremely dangerous [like] Abu Zubaydah,
people who have been planners of 9/11."
"He Appears to Lack Basic Knowledge About and Belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Laws,
and U.S. Institutions "
That's the next line of the open letter, and it's certainly a fair assessment of Donald Trump.
But it's more than a little ironic that it was signed by Michael Hayden who, in addition to supporting
CIA's torture project,
oversaw the
National Security Agency's post-9/11 secret surveillance program. Under that
program
, the government recorded the phone, text, and Internet communications of an unknown number of
people inside and outside of the United States - all without warrants .
Perhaps Hayden believes in the Constitution, but at best it's a selective belief. There's that
pesky 4th Amendment, for example, which guarantees that
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized."
Nor does Hayden appear to believe in U.S. laws and institutions, at least when it comes to the
1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established the secret courts that are supposed
to issue exactly the sort of warrant Hayden's program never requested.
John Negroponte is another of the signers who has a history of skirting U.S. laws and the congress
that passes them. While ambassador to Honduras, he helped develop a
murderous
" contra" army, which the United States armed and trained to overthrow the government
of neighboring Nicaragua. During those years, however, aid to the contras was actually illegal
under U.S. law. It was explicitly prohibited under the so-called
Boland Amendments to
various appropriations bills, but no matter. "National security" was at stake.
Speaking of the Constitution, it's instructive to take a look at Article 6, which states in part
that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land." Such treaties include, for example, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand non-aggression
pact (whose violation was the first charge brought against the Nazi officials tried at
Nuremberg ) and Article
51 of the U.N. charter, which permits military action only "if an armed attack occurs against a Member
of the United Nations."
In 1998, Robert Zoellick, another of those 50 Republicans openly denouncing Trump, signed a
different letter
, which advocated abrogating those treaties. As an associate of the
Project
for a New American Century , he was among those who urged then-President Bill Clinton to direct
"a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts" to "remove Saddam Hussein from
power." This was to be just the first step in a larger campaign to create a Pax Americana
in the Middle East. The letter specifically urged Clinton not to worry about getting a Security Council
resolution, arguing that "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence
on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
At least give us some lesser evilism, Prof. Gordon. No? But really, Clinton's endorsement
of Kissinger and the lack of political and MSM response to that endorsement is perhaps the most
shocking thing. My introduction to Kissinger's crimes was via Hitchens, who then promptly backed
the Bush regime's interventionism. I shouldn't be surprised anymore at establishment Three-Card
Monte.
Next homework assignment for Gordon: Hillary on Kissinger. What it means, why it matters.
(1) The Republican Party is ALSO the Party of the Great Redeemer, Abraham Lincoln.
(2) Word(s) are not Things, they are change, change, changing signifiers of nothing.
(3) The divide (spectrum) is NOT, left to right! The Neo-Bolsheviks (cons/libs) have used money
and influence to appropriate (own) BOTH the "Left" and the "Right". They own (as in bought and
sold "own") the discussion.
(4) The true spectrum is up and down. The 99% vs the 1%.
(5) 1%ers, aspiring 1%ers, the service staff of the 1% (managers etc) should definitely vote
for Hillary Clinton. She is the candidate (voice for) The Unique.
(6) Donald Trump is seeking to be a voice for the 99%. IMO, this make him The Progressive.(The
Walt Whitman Progressive) People who see themselves as members of the Masses, The People, The
Crowd, The Gaia, The 99%, EveryMan/EveryWoman/EveryGender
(7) Trump does not look or sound the way most of us imagine, The Redeemer
should look. (Obama was a perfectly looking redeemer, IMO, except, he was a false messiah
). IMO, Trump is the Redeemer, the real McCoy .
(8) " Inattentional blindness, also known as perceptual blindness , is a psychological
lack of attention that is not associated with any vision defects or deficits. It may be further
defined as the event in which an individual fails to recognize an unexpected stimulus that is
in plain sight. When it simply becomes impossible for one to attend to all the stimuli in a given
situation, a temporary blindness effect can take place as a result; that is, individuals fail
to see objects or stimuli that are unexpected and quite often salient." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
Trump is right in front of us. Stop listening to all the bullshit and open your eyes and ears
to what is going on. (IMO, of course!)
No matter how bad Trump is, Hillary is worse. Hell I wouldn't be voting for Trump if Hillary
weren't in the race, that's for damn sure.
So just go ahead and keep doing more oppo research on Trump. Please–I beg you. Because no matter
what you manage to pull out of your butt I'm just nodding my head and saying to myself, "yep.
Probably true, but still far better than Hillary."
" But it's disconcerting to see Rebecca Gordon document how these individuals have engaged
in the same sort of unacceptable behavior that they Trump would undertake, and then argue that
Trump is obviously dangerous, and by implication, Clinton is not. Clinton is fully on board with
the policies that these experts represent, so how exactly is she better? Gordon needs to make
a case, not just assert superiority. "
Isn't this just another good example of why we shouldn't be afraid of the truth and
plain talk? When we finally start using words like "liar", "cheater", "thief" "murderer" "assassin"
to describe those (politicians) guilty of such crimes, we might be able to get rid of them. PC
is too often a trap for the one practicing it. It dims the bright lights we want to shine on the
wrong-doer and robs us of our ability to debate . There's a reason why plain-talking demagogues
like Trump are so successful. Instead of wrapping ourselves even more tightly in the saran wrap
of genteel good manners (sometimes just another way of showing superiority?) we should be honing
our language skills and engaging with the enemy.
Here's to using the right words. "War" (or, nowadays, military intervention or (ha!)
humanitarian intervention - what's "humanitarian" about dropping bombs and destroying infrastructure
and causing environmental devastation?) is murder .
Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton - all mass murderers. The latter two
who weep public tears every time there is a mass shooting in the US that kills a dozen or so victims.
Hillary is all about "arms control" in the US and slammed Bernie because he was too "lenient"
on guns, while she razed Libya and caused the spread of masses of weapons from Libya to Syria.
There is mass murder going on in Yemen as I type, aided and abetted by the US military, using
weapons sold by Obama and HRC to the Saudis.
Trump is a bloviating idiot (at best) but a simple question: how many people has he actually
killed compared to Bush, Obama, and the two Clintons? And never forget Albright's "it was worth
it" comment regarding 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of Bill Clinton's sanctions.
If Hill actually shows up for the debates, this is one thing Donald can hammer her about without
people screaming at him for being mean to the little lady--which is what they will do if he rips
into her on some of the other stuff he will rip into her on. HRC will hide behind her skirts,
like the phony "feminist" she is.
I just stumbled on a new post at CounterPunch regarding Hillary's fake "feminism", including
the following 'grafs:
During her husband's presidency, Hillary was a vocal advocate for the barbaric sanctions
regime, as well as the No-Fly Zone and other belligerent actions taken by her husband against
the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. In fact, many experts have noted that the Clinton Iraq
policy essentially laid the groundwork for George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq
in 2003. In particular, Hillary was a leading proponent of the sanctions which, according
to the UN, killed roughly 500,000 children.
And, of course, there's Hillary's infamous support for Bush's Iraq War when she was a Senator
from New York. Clinton explained to the Council on Foreign Relations in December 2003, "I was
one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam
Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote .I stand by the vote." Of course this was in
the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein, a
time when one could still justify support for a war that, just a few years later, proved to
be politically unpalatable, to say nothing of it being an egregious war crime, as we all knew
from the beginning.
And Hillary was not perturbed in the slightest at the hundreds of thousands of women and
children whose lives were irrevocably destroyed by the war and its aftermath, one which is
still being reckoned with today.
Hillary and Bill – the power couple tag team of Washington – also led the charge
to bomb Serbia in 1999. During the 78 days of "Operation Allied Force" more than 2,000 civilians
were killed, including 88 children. Naturally, this was of little consequence to the
great feminist heroine Hillary who, according to biographer Gail Sheehy, proudly proclaimed
"I urged [Bill Clinton] to bomb [Serbia]." The barbarism and sheer viciousness of someone who
gleefully takes credit for the deaths of scores of children and countless thousands of women
should give anyone who believes in the Hillary the feminist mythos serious pause.
Who could forget Libya? In the war championed by Hillary Clinton, who is regarded
by experts as being the loudest voice in favor of regime change against Gaddafi and the destruction
of the country, tens of thousands of women were raped, lynched, and murdered by the glorious
"rebels" (read terrorists) backed by Clinton and her imperial coterie . Perhaps the
great feminist hero could speak to the children of Misrata, Sirte, and Bani Walid who have
now grown up without their mothers and fathers, and explain to them just how "worth it" the
war was. Maybe Clinton could look mothers in the eyes and tell them how the deaths
of their children from war, disease, and terrorism is a small price to pay for the foreign
policy objectives of Washington.
The failure of so many partisans to recognize what is going on is startling. This is really
one of the most remarkable political seasons in my memory, and I go back to Stevenson/Eisenhower
days. (Criminy.)
We're watching what amounts to a reversal of political polarities, with the Democrats led by
Hillary becoming sort of hopped-up post-modern high-end Republicans (what the Republicans would
have become if they hadn't gone insane with power during and following the Reagan regime) and
the Republicans becoming the party of a hopped-up and angry rabble. Their spokesman is Trump,
but he's not their leader by any means. For the moment, there isn't one, but if this reversal/realignment
is sustained - and I think it will be - there will be a Leader of the Rabble. It's too juicy an
opportunity to resist.
Hillary is signaling in every way possible that she will govern as a hot-dog Republican, fully
on board with the War Party which has been the driving force of the Republican and a significant
part of the Democratic establishment since Bush the Old. Hillary is become what Jeb! was supposed
to be.
The Establishment's War Party is fully on board with Herself as well.
This could turn ugly very quickly. They have been telling us very loudly that they want a confrontation
with Russia and then with China to establish once and for all the dominance of the American Empire
over the entire globe. They are prepared - and apparently eager - to crush any resistance with
whatever force they choose, whenever they choose. Moscow and Beijing to be turned to seas of glowing
glass if they do not yield sufficiently and in a timely fashion.
That's the threat this War Party under Mrs. Clinton holds out.
That is the threat the Republicans and their Party would have held out if the War Party had
continued to hold sway within it. Trump has short-circuited that by insisting that glassing the
"terrorists" is the right course of action, leaving the Russians and Chinese pretty much alone.
Except that's not what the War Party wants. The "terrorists" in fact are their allies in the quest
for ultimate power.
Instead, the goal seems to be to dismember/destroy Russia and to contain and control China,
exploiting both for whatever resources can be extracted, ultimately leaving both as empty husks.
Trump says he has other goals, but they amount to a similar program with somewhat different
victims.
Partisans see one as ultimate Evil, the other as Less Evil and therefore Good.
But it's a goon show. The War Party is determined to have its way again. Clinton will follow
their lead; Trump would try to lead it. Neither we nor they can escape it.
When somebody comes up with a way to disable the War Party within the permanent government,
I'll listen. Until then, we are as they say, f**ked.
What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist
on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed
with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption
of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
"... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
"... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
"... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
"... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret
accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J.
Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.
The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political
party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists
from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.
The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's
International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the
Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked
for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.
Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization,
the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm
that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.
Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did
not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta,
is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.
The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk,
in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously
been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded
the nonprofit.
The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's
work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate,
Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including
the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved.
The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia
Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.
The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no
obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered
assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized
in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."
Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the
politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital
of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.
Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in
the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have
signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services
such as exit polling, equipment and other services.
On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York
Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as
an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million
in cash payments to him over a five-year period.
In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign
on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books
cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical,"
he said.
Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made
to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators
suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million
are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."
Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a
legitimate campaign outlay.
Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer
server.
The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures
in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just
under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black
ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.
Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger
also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts
votes.
Correction: August 20, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of
Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by
Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.
"... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The
draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character
string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code
associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed
were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower
Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software,
part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.
The provenance
of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it
remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered
with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public.
The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific
16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers
leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government
to infect and monitor what one document
estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside
dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software
have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the
Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers
don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.
But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments,
Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:
The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable
router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria.
It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means,
so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need
to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.
So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might
have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have
their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have
been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.
The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.
A Memorable SECONDDATE
The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such
as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do
know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers
to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's
existence was
first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation
effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been
described in previously released Snowden documents.
Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers
leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection
network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer
system in Lebanon.
The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used
within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID
SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section
within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID,
including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related
infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:
The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak,
including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot
below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:
All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below),
there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required
to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.
.
After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both
an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security
researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been
particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there
is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.
Where SECONDDATE Fits In
This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate
how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the
NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into
thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload
from an NSA server.
According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction
to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred
to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION
is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack
and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another
top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer:
your web browser."
One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the
internet.
That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as
a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation
show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client,"
invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example
given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage
browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as
much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!"
In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How
do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND
or BADDECISION."
The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the
FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE
along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret
presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.
To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a
mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears
to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION,
which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:
Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to
successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013
presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon.
In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications
Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's
Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."
In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for
the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data,"
a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.
SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID
server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email
providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One
document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software
other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers,
eventually infecting the targets' computers.
A Potentially Mundane Hack
Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context
and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked,
but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a
series of tweets,
he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others,
and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves.
A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to
embarrass the agency.
"... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
"... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
"... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
"... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
"... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
"... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
"... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
"... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post
accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh
article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!
My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns,
and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.
It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United
States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was
critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.
So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret
File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this
story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.
On Wednesday night,
Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led
conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter
account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that
we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.
I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's
merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled
against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom
of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents
of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.
Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not
awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view
towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop
in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are
not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.
Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and
his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he
is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest
reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.
Our
outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news
and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh
headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.
In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning,
calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally
negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.
It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns,
I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling
my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary
Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary
lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.
Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently,
Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are
worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.
The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a
Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe
a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?
There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from
our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans,
like so many others in this country, wish they would.
Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was
written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.
The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch
(notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration
that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.
In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated
that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory
and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.
Today, the Obama Administration
grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria,
despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded),
under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.
We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon
which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.
And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher,
but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose
is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular
opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.
But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers
traitors to this country.
Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from
neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max
Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has
engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.
Jane Sanders, wife
of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector,
publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects
of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own
pushback,
including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives
not to fret.
... ... ...
Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents,
co-signed a June report with Michčle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense
secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria,
a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with
Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.
Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative.
Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative
foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist
terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread
opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has
written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal
interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower
a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have
in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.
Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner
her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise,
heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives
have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary
contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a
serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage
her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into
voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering
the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.
So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary
is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common
interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them
into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign
policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
Another debt shark is circling this poor country after feeling blood in the water...
Notable quotes:
"... Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of. ..."
"... Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights ..."
"... In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia. ..."
"... "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society. ..."
New documents released by hackers who compromised George Soros' Open
Society Foundations raise serious questions about the Hungarian billionaire's role in Ukraine.
A leaked document, from the massive 2,500 file dump by DC Leaks of George Soros' most sensitive Open
Society Foundations communications, show the inordinate amount of power and authority the Hungarian
billionaire wielded over Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan government overthrow.
Soros, along with key executives from the Open Society Foundations, held extensive meetings with
nearly every actor involved in the Maidan coup including Ukraine's Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
Justice, Health and Education as well as US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the regional director of
USAID. However, the documents do exclude one key official, Victoria Nuland, who was allegedly involved
in steering the opposition to the Yanukovych government.
The records focus on plans to minimize and counter Russian influence and cultural ties to Ukraine
with a focus towards steering Kiev towards social and economic reforms that Soros favored. The Hungarian
billionaire has not been bashful about his acts or intent to influence politics in Ukraine establishing
the NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) to spearhead the formation of the "New Ukraine."
Most troubling in the document leak appears to be a file titled
"Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt" to discuss Ukraine's future. In the meeting, which
took place on March 31, 2014, just months after the Maidan coup and weeks prior to civil strife following
Ukrainian forces assault on Donbass, US Ambassador Pyatt outlines a PR war against Putin, a position
George Soros viewed favorably in the meeting.
"The short term issue that needs to be addressed will be the problem in getting the message out
from the government through professional PR tools, especially given Putin's own professional smear
campaigns," said the US Ambassador.
George Soros responded, "Agreement on the strategic communications issue – providing professional
PR assistance to the Ukrainian government would be very useful."
Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short
of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a
federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country
which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of.
The Ambassador noted that Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear George Soros'
views on the situation directly, upon return from his trip" raising the question why one wealthy
foreign individual, neither from Ukraine nor Russia, had such access to influence American policy.
Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence
continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that
the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights through the
decentralization process, feeding into Lavrov's line that the Ukrainian government is dysfunctional
and not successful as a unitary state, making it a necessity to have federalization.
Then, in a full capitulation, the American diplomat point blank asks George Soros, "what should
the US government be doing and what is the US government currently doing."
To which, George Soros responded, "Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose
potent smart sanctions." He then called on the US government to "impose sanctions on Russia for 90
days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections."
In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls
for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger
group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia.
"We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society
– continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting
that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society.
This is a very important article and I strongly recommend to read it in full to understand how neoliberal
propaganda works.
This is nice example of how difficult is for ordinary person to cut threw media lies and get to
the truth. So some level of brainwashing is inevitable unless you use only alternative media. Neoliberal
MSM are disgusting and are lying all the time, but unless you use WWW and foreign sources (like people
in the in the USSR did -- substitute radio for WWW, as it did not existed yet) that is not much else.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump did something downright shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign policy approach. Hard. ..."
"... Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that That's not keeping us safe." ..."
"... Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay? ..."
Back in February, candidates for the Republican nomination for president debated each other in
South Carolina. The Saturday evening discussion was raucous. Donald Trump did something downright
shocking for a debate a few days before an important Republican primary. He went after the country's
last Republican president, George W. Bush. Hard. He went after the Republican Party's general foreign
policy approach. Hard.
Moderator John Dickerson asked him about his 2008 comments in favor of impeaching George W. Bush.
He had said that year that Bush had "lied" to get the United States into a war in Iraq.
Trump said to Dickerson:
Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? The war in Iraq, we spent
$2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest
oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make
mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the
Middle East. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction,
there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Jeb Bush attempted to defend his brother's honor, saying, "And while Donald Trump was building
a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I'm proud of
what he did."
Trump said, "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that
That's not keeping us safe."
And on it went. Yes, many in the crowd booed. Yes, many Republicans opposed his conspiracy theories
about George W. Bush. The media were able to report Trump's challenges to Republican foreign policy
without weighing in on the veracity of his claims. The most interesting thing of all? Trump
easily won the
South Carolina primary a week later with 33 percent of the vote.
Compare that little vignette with this week, when Donald Trump repeatedly said that President
Obama and Hillary Clinton were founders/co-founders/MVPs of ISIS. Even though the media had
more than shot their outrage wad for the week, the media doubled, tripled, even quadrupled down on
their outrage for the Wednesday night-Thursday news cycle. Here are six problems with the media's
complete meltdown over the remarks.
Why Did This Become an Issue Now and Not 7 Months Ago?
Republicans who oppose Trump
claim the media encouraged Trump when he was setting fire to Republican opponents but have fought
him tooth and nail in the general. Ammunition for that claim includes the distinct ways the media
have reacted to his long-standing claim that Obama and Clinton founded ISIS.
As the Washington
Examiner notes, Trump said this three times in January alone:
'They've created ISIS. Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,' he said during a campaign
rally in Mississippi.
Trump restated the claim in an interview on CBS in July. 'Hillary Clinton invented ISIS
with her stupid policies,' he said. 'She is responsible for ISIS.'
He said it again during a rally in Florida one month later. 'It was Hillary Clinton – she
should take an award from them as the founder of ISIS.'
Needless to say, the media response to these comments was more bemused enabling than the abject
horror they reserved for this week. The full media meltdown over something Trump has been saying
all year long is at best odd and unbecoming. At worst, it suggests deep media corruption.
Hyperliteralism
Listen, Trump might be an effective communicator with his core audience,
but others have trouble understanding him. His speaking style couldn't be more removed from the
anodyne and cautious political rhetoric of our era. This can be a challenge for political journalists
in particular. His sentences run on into paragraphs. He avoids specificity or contradicts himself
when he doesn't. His sentences trail into other sentences before they finish. He doesn't play
the usual games that the media are used to. It's frustrating.
So the media immediately decided Trump was claiming that Obama had literally incorporated ISIS
a few years back. And they treated this literal claim as a fact that needed to be debunked.
Politifact gave the claim one of their vaunted "pants on fire" rulings: ... ... ...
The "fact" "check" admits that both President Barack Obama's leadership in Iraq and Hillary
Clinton's push to change regimes in Libya led to the explosion of ISIS but says that since Trump
said he really, totally, no-joke meant Obama and Clinton were co-founders, that they must give
him a Pants On Fire rating.
As for the CNN chyron which appears to be deployed never in the case of Hillary Clinton's many
serious troubles with truth-telling, or when Joe Biden told black voters that Republicans were
going to "put y'all back in chains," but repeatedly in the case of Donald Trump speaking hyperbolically,
this tweet is worth considering:
Failure to Do Due Diligence
On Thursday morning, Trump did a radio interview with
Hugh Hewitt. The media clipped one part of his answer and used it to push a narrative that Donald
Trump was super serial
about Obama literally going to Baghdad, attending organizational meetings, and holding bake sales
to launch his new organization ISIS.
Kapur's tweet went viral but so did about eleventy billion other reporter tweets making the
same point. The Guardian headline was "Trump reiterates he literally believes Barack Obama is
the 'founder of Isis'."
You really need to listen to the interview to get the full flavor of how unjournalistic this
narrative is.
Yes, Trump does reiterate over and over that Obama is the founder of ISIS. And yes, he says
he really meant to say Obama founded ISIS. But that's definitely not all. How hard is it to listen
for an additional minute or read an additional few words? The relevant portion of the interview
is from 15:25 to 16:53. So this is not a huge investment of your time.
First off, let's note for our hyperliteral media that Trump says "I'm a person that doesn't
like insulting people" a few seconds before Hewitt asks about the ISIS comments. (Fact check:
Pants on fire, amiright?) In this minute and a half, Trump says "I meant he's the founder of ISIS.
I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her,
too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushes back, saying that Obama is trying to kill ISIS.
Trump says:
DT: I don't care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that
was the founding of ISIS, okay?
Here, journalists and pundits, is your first slap across the face that maybe, just maybe, Trump
is not talking about articles of incorporation but, rather, something else entirely.
Hewitt says, yeah, but the way you're saying it is opening you up to criticism. Was it a mistake?
Trump says not at all. Obama is ISIS's most valuable player. Then Trump asks Hewitt if he doesn't
like the way he's phrasing all this! And here's where journalists might want to put on their thinking
caps and pay attention. Hewitt says he'd say that Obama and Hillary lost the peace and created
a vacuum for ISIS, but he wouldn't say they created it:
HH: I don't. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan
vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn't create ISIS. That's what
I would say.
DT: Well, I disagree.
HH: All right, that's okay.
DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that's why ISIS came about.
HH: That's
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn't have had ISIS.
HH: That's true.
DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.
HH: And that's, I'd just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with
this, because I know I'm keeping you long, and Hope's going to kill me.
DT: But they wouldn't talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?
Now, this is undoubtedly true. When people critique Obama's policies as Hewitt did, the media
either call the critic racist or ignore him. When Trump critiques Obama's policies, they do talk
about the way he does it. Maybe this means the message gets through to people.
No matter what, though, the media should have stuck through all 90 seconds of the discussion
to avoid the idiotic claim that Trump was saying Obama was literally on the ground in Iraq running
ISIS' operations. He flat-out admits he's speaking hyperbolically to force the media to cover
it.
Pretending This Rhetoric Is Abnormal
People accuse their political opponents of being
responsible for bad things all the time.
Clinton accused Trump of being ISIS' top recruiter. Bush's CIA and NSA chief said Trump was
a "recruiting
sergeant" for ISIS. Former NYC mayor Rudy Guiliani said Hillary Clinton could be considered
a
founding member of ISIS. Here was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, just a few weeks ago, making
a completely false claim of Republican's literal ties to ISIS:
Carly Fiorina and Rick Santorum placed blame for ISIS on Obama and Clinton. Sen. John McCain
said Obama was "directly responsible" for the Orlando ISIS attack due to his failure to deal with
the terror group. President Obama said
he couldn't think of a more potent recruiting tool for ISIS than Republican rhetoric in support
of prioritizing help for Christians who had been targeted by the group. Last year, Vanity Fair
published a piece blaming George W. Bush for ISIS. Heck,
so did President
Obama. There are many other examples. This type of rhetoric may not be exemplary, but we shouldn't
pretend it's unique to Trump.
Missing Actual Problems with His Comments
Huge kudos to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski
for avoiding the feigned outrage/fainting couch in favor of an important critique of Trump's comments.
He didn't pretend to be confused by what Trump was saying. By avoiding that silliness, he noticed
something much more problematic with Trump's comments.
Trump has cited the conservative critique of President Obama's Iraq policy - that the withdrawal
of troops in 2011 led to a power vacuum that allowed ISIS to flourish - in making the claim.
'He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,' Trump said on CNBC on Thursday. 'The way he removed
our troops - you shouldn't have gone in. I was against the war in Iraq. Totally against it.'
(Trump was not against the war as he has repeatedly claimed.) 'The way he got out of Iraq was
that that was the founding of ISIS, OK?' Trump later said.
But lost in Trump's immediate comments is that, for years, he pushed passionately and forcefully
for the same immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. In interview after interview in the later
2000s, Trump said American forces should be removed from Iraq.
Read the whole (brief) thing. One of the Trump quotes in the piece specifically has him acknowledging
the civil unrest in Iraq that led to ISIS flourishing. It's a devastating critique and a far smarter
one than the silly hysteria on display elsewhere.
We're Still Not Talking about Widespread Dissatisfaction with Our Foreign Policy
Let's think back to the opening vignette. Trump went into the South in the middle of the Republican
primary and ostentatiously micturated over George W. Bush's Iraq policy. The voters of South Carolina
rewarded him with a victory.
Here's the real scandal in this outrage-du-jour: by pretending to think that Trump was claiming
Obama had operational control over ISIS' day-to-day decision making, the media failed to cover
widespread dissatisfaction with this country's foreign policy, whether it's coming from George
W. Bush or Barack Obama.
Many Americans are rather sick of this country's way of fighting wars, where enemies receive
decades of nation-building instead of crushing defeats, and where threats are pooh-poohed or poorly
managed instead of actually dealt with.
Trump may be an uneven and erratic communicator who is unable to force that discussion in a
way that a more traditional candidate might, but the media shouldn't have to be forced into it.
Crowds are cheering Trump's hard statements about Obama and Clinton's policies in the Middle East
because they are sick and tired of losing men, women, treasure and time with impotent, misguided,
aimless efforts there.
The vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, even if
many of them deny they supported it now. Americans have lost confidence in both Republican
and Democratic foreign policy approaches. No amount of media hysteria will hide that reality.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal
empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism,
is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
Notable quotes:
"... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
"... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton
was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies
long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even
be a lame duck till November.
Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't
socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally
a Democrat.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered
(or didn't.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter
money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'.
Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the
behest of special interests.
(Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which
presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless,
the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because
they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)
Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality
and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature
of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.
Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite
support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.
"... Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip the senate, court the monsters. ..."
Ah, it's official: Clinton is actively seeking Henry Kissinger's endorsement. The man who helped
scuttle the peace talks in 1968, prolonging the Vietnam War by seven years, at the cost of hundreds
of thousands of lives. Who was at the heart of the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos-personally
selecting targets for bomber runs-which led to the destabilization of Cambodia and ultimately the
Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian genocide. Who firmly backed the Pakistani military in its genocidal
slaughter in Bangladesh. As Greg Grandin, whose book about Kissinger is must-reading, wrote not so
long ago, "The full tally hasn't been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe
4 million deaths to Kissinger's actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern
Africa."
This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio or
Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible reckless
madman Donald Trump.
A glance at the Politico piece reveals it's a bit vague on the details, saying that, according
to an unnamed source, the Clinton campaign has "sent out feelers" to Kissinger, Baker, Schultz,
and Rice. But yeah, that's a mistake. Her campaign doesn't need them, and why HRC does not do
everything to keep her distance from Kissinger - I mean as a political matter (if they want to
be on friendly terms in private life, I guess that's their business) - is mystifying. Maybe Bill
Clinton, who attended anti-Vietnam War protests in London while a student at Oxford, shd have
a long talk w/ HRC about the period. Since, though she lived through it, it apparently did not
make that much of an impact. Anyway, I'd be surprised if Kissinger ends up publicly endorsing
her.
This is the man whose support Hillary wants. Because Kissinger sways so many votes in Ohio
or Georgia? No, because he's prudential, realistic, respectable, unlike that irresponsible
reckless madman Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton's respect for Kissinger has been noted before I think, and it's awful. Even
if she were free of that shithead, though, her current goal is to demolish Trump. Voices on the
GOP side really are important to erode his support not just among voters but within the party
and the donor base. This could be a historic walloping. If monsters can help the effort to flip
the senate, court the monsters.
It's really not mystifying. Clinton has long courted that imprimatur of foreign policy mainstream
respectability, and while the origins of that courting may have been instrumental and strategic,
pure political calculation, it has since become a part of her political identity. I don't this
is cynicism anymore; she believes it.
Meanwhile, the poll numbers keep climbing for her. Virtually every mainstream journalist now
recognizes what some of us have been saying for months. Absent a "miracle," as Rothenberg says
here, Trump will be squashed.
"... This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels. ..."
I already answered your question RNB– the mainstream press, HRW, Amnesty, and various blogs. But
if you look at the numbers released, they don't quite fit the narrative. For example
Note a couple of things from the Syrian Observatory figures. First, civilians are about a third
of the total. The number of Syrian military dead plus associated militia is comparable to the
number of civilian dead ( not counting the estimated group) and the rebel dead, adding up the
different categories including outside forces, are smaller than the dead on Theproud government
side.
This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field
with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because
of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's
forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help
so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is
what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned
rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian
military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed
rebels.
In the much smaller scale Gaza War the bulk of the deaths were Palestinian civilians– maybe
1500. Hundreds of Hamas fighters were killed and dozens of Israeli soldiers. That's more the kind
of ratio I would expect if the Syrian civil war fit into the framework given by American politicians
and pundits.
"... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions
buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to
Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas
cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.
These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition,
torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things
like that.
"... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
"... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
"... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
"... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
"... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
"... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right.
Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan
system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support.
That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.
In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's
policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy
for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone
show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct
supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.
The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama
who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued
after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that
for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders
on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.
And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president
in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the
US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.
Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting
all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry
Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is
buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people
who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin
magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.
It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard
Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes
to China" moment. I have no idea why.
Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted.
As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain
enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout
enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how
votes are counted.
The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine
(an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.
"... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
"... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
@ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign,
according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy
directors."
"But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more
about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."
So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be
in the Oval Office.
And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.
Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds
for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff
of legend to the clueless, of course.
How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff
of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall
we call it? Well, probably not modesty.
My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for
a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone
notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.
And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in
a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.
"... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
"... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
"... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
"... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
"... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud.
Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush,
he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to
read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with
Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."
If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons'
Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length,
and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration
into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly
Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's
description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before
an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline
proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."
Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter
the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his
back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we
forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this
last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals
away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened,
as McConnell chronicles in detail.
The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot
even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands
of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated:
as
McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport,
it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for
the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after
being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with
more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their
survival skills fully intact.
They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have,"
says
McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands
more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and
periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored
a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."
Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the
prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form.
But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.
In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons
as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President
Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best
when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in "
Divided
and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion
that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with
a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort
of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes
him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
That critique is laid out in a long essay, "
The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences
of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you
haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and
yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get
what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We
find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat
rejected, and rightly so.
At the end of a long "
Open Letter to David Horowitz
on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel
fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost,
he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely,
disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have
done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts
reader a dozen years before that."
For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author
of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his
ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through
in a way that is understated and yet strong.
Here he is in Virginia
Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers,
two black and one white:
It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether
the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting
at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments
in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best
of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments
one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are
all connected.
So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run,
and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really
have to read this book to find out.
Which means
Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs
have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility
for its own airspace.
Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach
to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.
Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically,
the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the
Malaysian flight was coming down.
"The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that
militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates
to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour
after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a
passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now
possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."
Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian
statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.
"... The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world. ..."
"... In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1. ..."
"... The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst. ..."
"... The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. ..."
"... However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'. ..."
"... Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage. ..."
"... Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa. ..."
"... Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects. ..."
The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City. September 10, 2001
was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.
Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011
would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.
But, that was not the case. Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria
well before the staged uprising began its opening act.
The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals. The
Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO regime change attack on Libya, were
in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence. The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh
Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special
dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision. He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive
as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated. He was accustomed
to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive.
All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent. However,
the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover.
Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and
confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign
Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and
directed from Jordan.
Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in
Deraa without attracting any suspicion. The local men were the 'front' for the operation.
The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided
the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money
and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.
In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by
teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This
was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission:
to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.
The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found,
never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.
In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation
which arises, and protesters take to the streets. The security teams step in to keep the peace and
clear the streets and if there is a 'brutal crackdown' the otherwise 'peaceful protesters' will react
with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell.
This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters
will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with
violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.
The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation
in a CIA-Hollywood production. They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot.
These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in
Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
Royal family and their paid officials.
The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about
teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware
of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.
The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government
has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace
treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door
in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire
balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America's interests and
projects in the Middle East. King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the
same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself
Palestinian. These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The
Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy
carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.
The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the
gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone
of Palestinian rights into dust. To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of
the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.
Deraa's location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot
of the opening act of the Syrian uprising. If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been
to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, "No." It is a small and insignificant agricultural
town. It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution. Deraa has a historical importance
because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists.
The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has
turned into an international war. Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution
in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ˝ years
of violence around the country, Aleppo's population never participated in the uprising, or call for
regime change.
Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and
felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence
would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians. However, this was not
to play out for Aleppo. Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and
the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from
Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North
Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the
Turkey-Aleppo border. The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical
needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia. The weapons were all
supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya. The
US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession
of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons
of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.
Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in
charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya. Once his
fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of
operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for
in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border
controls. In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA,
but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien.
However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army:
the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold
girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they proudly videoed and uploaded.
Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring
Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly
before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven
around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war
refugees in Damascus. Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally,
and without any body guards or security detail. Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security
team in USA. Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that
it was a safe place. Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest
tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.
However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety
in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'.
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab
Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline
and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the
stage.
We can't under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction
of Syria. For example, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the
cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque. Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince
of Qatar. The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria. The USA
was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make
payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being
paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest
Middle East allies of the United States of America. This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO,
Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily.
The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks,
but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don't
care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it. As long as
the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able
to find Syria on a map anyway.
Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC
and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government
and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists
who were pretending to be players in a local uprising. Some days, the scripts were so similar that
you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut. Onto the stage stepped
the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis
from his perch in Oklahoma. These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended
to know everything going on in Syria. British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate
one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online,
were baffled.
Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists
who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend
their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of
democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed
civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.
There was one
global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world,
and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom,
justice and the American way. From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were
paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria. A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria,
with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame. Authenticity was not questioned;
the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.
Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric
who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest,
and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near
Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the
Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.
PERIES: Ok. And, John, give us a sense of what Russia's interests are in this meeting. I mean, although
it was downplayed, they did have the meeting with Erdogan, and they were the first to acknowledge
and provide some support to Erdogan after the coup. We know that–
HELMER: –No support. No, no, that's not quite right. Russian policy is for stability on its borders,
its neighbors. Russia does not consider its national interests, its security interests, its border
stability, to be advanced if there are coups and revolutions in countries around the neighborhood,
whether that's Ukraine, the US did sponsor a coup in Kiev in February 2014, whether it's in Iran,
whether it's in North Korea, whether it's in China, or whether it's in Turkey. So the Russian position
was, stability in the neighborhood. The Russian position was Mr. Erdogan is the elected, constitutional
leader of that country, and what was happening was an attempt to kill him, overthrow him, so Russia's
position was stability in the neighborhood. That was the Russian position. It was stated rather quicker
than Mr. Kerry was capable of stating it when he was trying to put some money on whoever was the
winner and wasn't sure who would be the winner.
But the Russian position is really simple. It's good neighbor policy if you like, but let me try
and make it quick and short for you. First, Turkey should stop supporting and fueling and providing
safe haven and supplies for groups that threaten Russia to the North, threaten Syria to the south.
Threaten Iraq to the east. That means and end to support for ISIS, an end to support for the Chechen
Rebellion in the Russian Caucasus. It means an end to support for Crimean Tatar opposition to Russia.
It means an end Turkish support for the war against Armenia. That's number one. Number two, Russia
has always for the last several hundred years, as long as there are ships, and as long as there's
the sea, Russia wants free passage through the so-called Turkish straits, between the Black Sea,
the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean. The Turks claim that it's a territorial war, they often claim
that they lost several wars over this. Russia wants to see no expansion of NATO or enemy operations,
naval operations, in the Black Sea, facilitated through the Bosphorus, through the Dardanelles, through
the Turkish straits, at the behest and at the permission and the encouragement of the Turkish government.
Those are security issues, right? No response from Erdogan. In fact, he said at the press conference,
we didn't even talk about Syria, we'll talk about that a bit later in the afternoon. But as for that
meeting, there is no record that anything was said, because as I said before the Russian Foreign
Ministry has yet to acknowledge there was such a meeting. More important, on the [crosstalk] morning
on the day Erdogan– HELMER: Well, let me go back a minute. On the morning of Erdogan's arrival in
Saint Petersburg, there is a 30 minute interview that he gave to Russian state television, to the
Tass News Agency, which he made a number of statements which he didn't repeat in his press conference.
He called again for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. He again explicitly referred to support for
the Crimean Tatars and their opposition to Crimea's accession, to the Russian Federation.
Those are two very big no-no's, negatives. Aggressive remarks to make on the eve of your arrival
in Russia, so that there was nothing left to discuss when he got there. Instead there's a lot of
talk about talking.
A lot of talk about talking about the future economic relations between the two countries. The
revival of the two gas pipeline projects, the Turkish Stream and South Stream for Gazprom. The revival
of the nuclear reactor project, which is Russia's building at Akkuyu. Talk about reviving investment,
talk about improving visa conditions for Turkish workers in Russia.
On none of those things, none of those things was any agreement announced. All the sides did,
all the presidents said at their press conference was that they agreed to continue talking. And for
all Mr. Erdogan's dear friend Putin remark he kept making roughly, I timed him, every three to four
minutes of the time he's in front of the camera, nobody believes it. And he didn't offer anything
on which the Russian side could say we've reached a new stage.
He did, yes he apologized for the shoot down of the SU24, but he did not offer Turkish compensation
for the murdered pilot, Captain Peshkov. It was very clear Russian policy that Turkey should pay
compensation, just as it's been Turkish policy that Israel should pay compensation for the killing
of Turkish citizens in the famous vessel incident off the Gaza coast several years ago. Turkey insisted
on compensation from Israel. It took years, it's been achieved. Yet Turkey offers no compensation
when Russia has insisted, on little issues, on big issues, Erdogan offered nothing.
PERIES: And John, what now? In terms of moving forward with these two countries who are very pivotal
and very strategically located in terms of the Syrian conflict.
HELMER: Well, I wouldn't say that the direction is forward. From a Greek point of view, there
is increasing chaos. From a Greek and Cyprian point of view, there is increasing chaos in Turkey,
and around Turkey. And from one point of view, that's a small positive because it makes the Turkish
army less capable of expanding aggressively east, south, or west.
There is not improvement on Turkey's readiness to reach a solution for the withdrawal of troops
from Northern Cyprus, illegally there since the invasion of '74. There is no sign that Turkey will
relent in its support for the overthrow of Syria. There is no sign that Turkey will do anything to
remove the Chechen threat to Russia inside Turkey, so we're going to move sideways.
We're going to move, we will simply watch and see if Mr. Erdogan himself can survive. But the
way he describes his survival is that he's the democratic leader of Turkey, well that's true.
He produces these street displays of public support, and at the same time he distrusts his own
military forces so much that he not only purges the general, generals staff, he couldn't bring a
military officer in his delegation to Moscow yesterday. Not one military officer does Mr. Erdogan
trust enough to bring to the party in Moscow. Sorry, in St. Petersburg. The chief of the Russian
General Staff was there but no Turkish counterpart officer. Steve H. ,
August 14, 2016 at 10:27 am
Instability seems to be the best description. Erdogan has so many horses attached to his cart
it's hard to see what he wants. Beyond the billions stashed in the walls of his estates; I think
it was Russia that released the phone calls with his son talking about moving the cash.
We know he wants the cash, but is he an Islamic sultan first, or is his main horse the Turkic
language group, which pushes into the X-istans to the east? Or is he a Euro, or a Russian lackey?
Easier to see the view from Russia. No Islamic fundamentalism is a foundation stone. The Kurds
have been better friends to Russia on this, and Russia
reinforces success . That's close to a deal-killer for Erdogan. But he has to deal with the
strategic fact that Russia can control the Black Sea by closing the Bosphorus unilaterally. Assad
has managed to keep the same deal with Russia as the Kurds, so far. Erdogan has a lot of enemies
to keep close. Does he have any friends?
Funny, it's all speculation but I had the opposite thought.
Erdogan, allegedly in a position of weakness, runs to Mother Russia for help in his time of
need. But as Helmer notes, he brought bupkis to the table: no concessions on Syria, on Chechen
seperatist groups, on trade, or even bones of lesser contention like Nato troops in Cyprus or
fruit trade. The most obvious conclusion should be that his "failed" trip to Moscow was more signalling
than a desperate appeal for help. And at whom is Erdogan's signalling aimed? Well Helmer again
tells us: the only ones who think it was a salient rapprochment are the Western Press: yes the
same Western Press that are currently hyperventillating that the Russians Are Coming! To wit,
if you are Erdogan and you thought Victoria Nuland was going to be the next US Secretary of State,
what would be the best way to get the stuff you wanted? Especially when it comes to Cyprus, arms
to kill kurds, the overthrow of Assad, leverage with the EU, escalation vs. Iran….
And on top of this, Erdogan has priors: he used the European press paranoia about immigrants
to blackmail Merkl. He shot down a Russian fighter jet to ingratiate himself to Nato. And he's
actively re-courting Israel. None of this indicates a realignment toward Russia– in fact his lack
of concessions indicates the opposite.
Like I said, at this point we can only speculate, and I personally lean more to the possibility
that Erdogan saw the possibility of the coup happening and realised it could be to his advantage.
But if you look at his position before the coup: weak domestically, not fully accepted by the
West… and compare that to what he gets from the coup: elimination of enemies in a purge and the
ability to use the threat of a Putin-alignment to blackmail the US, I don't see how the self-coup
theory has been knocked on the head.
I think your theory is as likely as any. Its very hard to see what Erdogan is doing. I suspects
its a situation where he has been too clever by half and has wrapped himself up in knots in his
various schemes. But its also possible he is actively trying to create as much ambiguity and uncertainty
as possible in order to extract as much as possible from his 'allies'.
Seems Erdogan is playing hard ball negotiations. Hopes Russia needs him more than Turkey needs
Russia. And certainly he is doing the same with the EU. Undoubtedly he is playing both sides against
each other for the best deal he can get. Wonder if he is competent enough to play those sort of
games with someone like Putin.
Although an alternative possibility is that Erdogan is completely out of his depth and burning
bridges with everyone by making irrational demands on the EU, the US and Russia.
Putin seems to be the most rational statesman in all this.
One of the best things about Trump, I think, is that he realizes this and wants to work with
him rather than demonize him in support of imperialistic type goals.
If Erdogan can pretend to change his Syria policy while not doing so, he can also pretend to
not change this policy while doing so. When is he deceitful and when is he honest? We may need
more time for Turkey's new policies to become apparent. Does anyone know what policy Gulen or
the coup plotters wants toward Syria?
Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?
Seems to be about as confused as Erdogan's.
This article on his website from 2011 is supportive of regime change, but this article from
2014 suggests that Gülenists within the media and the miltary/police/security organizations are
against intervention in Syria.
Interestingly,
this article from 2014 says almost the exact same things as we're seeing today about a Turkish
rapprochement with Russia and Iran.
Erodgan wants to be the caliph of the new Ottoman Empire, with the support of the Salafis in
Turkey, ISIS (or whatever) and Saudi Arabia.
As a supplier to ISIS for these reasons, he has no common ground with Russia, who wants an
end to Muslim Unrest, because it fuels problems for the Russian like Chechnya, and the other Muslim
states along the silk road.
Russia wants to ensure the Black Sea is no blockaded, because Sevastopol is their warm water
port, and has been both very important and controlled by Russia for over 400 years.
Erdogan, one expects,is hoping for "approval" from the United States to invade Syria to "keep
the peace," which would be a great step towards a unified Salafi empire.
The Middle East was, is, and will be the cockpit of the world for the foreseeable future.
Before considering events in the Middle East:
1. Know you history
2. Know your geography – look at the maps of borders for the last 1,000 years
3. Analyze ambitions in,and for, the Middle East
This opens the door for others, about a month ago the Russians, Iran's, Syrians meet in Russia.
They need to put aside their differences because Hillary coming back onto the world stage with
every bat-shit-crazy neo-conn at her command. Turkey sees that also. They are all stronger together
and throw in China in the back ground and who knows.
Erdogan awaits the results of America's election. He hopes that Clinton gets elected because
Clinton shares Ergogan's goal of toppling Assad in order to install a Jihadi Cannibal Terrorist
LiverEater government over all of Syria.
If Trump defeats Clinton ( unlikely I know), and if Trump then purges hundreds or thousands
of pieces of radioactive Clintonite Filth out of the relevant parts of the Administrative Branch
of Government ( even unlikelier) such that he can forcibly and semi-violently impose a "peace
with Russia" policy upon an unwilling DC FedRegime Government; then Erdogan may eventually give
up on getting Trump's support to topple Assad and install a Jihadi Terrorist government. What
would Ergogan do then? Where would he turn?
I think that some of the other commentators here are overly disparaging of Erdogan.
Erdogan is a skilful and gutsy politician, with a large body of support in his country.
I mean, for God's sake, we just saw that man totally punk the old-line Kemalists in
Turkish officer corps!
Late last year, despite the Syrian imbroglio and mounting tension with the Kurds, Erdogan won
a convincing electoral victory. His party formed an outright parliamentary majority.
When Erdogan meets Putin, that is a meeting of peers.
I'll repeat the prediction I have already made a couple of times on this site: Erdogan is stringing
Putin along until after the US election.
By the time Clinton is inaugurated in 2017, Erdogan will have finished purging the suspect
elements in the Turkish officer corps. Turkey will then be ready to play an important role in
the US-led escalation of the conflict against Syria and Russia.
But for the next 5-6 months, Erdogan wants to keep relations with Russia from going foul. That
way the Russians might not want to make a more intense effort to help the Syrians recapture all
of Aleppo.
It's a tough situation for Putin. If Russia steps up the offensive at Aleppo, it would be easy
for Erdogan and Clinton to use that as a pretext for their own escalation. If Putin waits for
2017, Erdogan and Clinton are likely to escalate anyhow–they'll make whatever pretext they need.ć
A reasonable argument, but if Putin knows anything, it's that he can't trust Erdogan, no matter
what the truth vis a vis US involvement in the coup or who may have tipped off or otherwise saved
Erdogan's regime. Erdogan was an utter fool to become involved in Syria, and like the Saudis and
Saddam before him, allow his ego to be captured by dreams of wider regional power and influence
under US auspices – in exchange, as always, for going to war against a US enemy. Anyone as encumbered
as Erdogan is an ally to be kept close enough to be useful, but not within striking distance.
I think the meeting was likely very serious, and I expect Erdogan and Putin both were looking
for something from the other indicating where there might be wiggle room vis a vis what everyone
expects is coming under Clinton, but which may already be underway – a major influx of new rebels/ISIS
into the fray in Syria amidst escalating calls for direct US intervention as per Libyan version
of a 'no-fly zone'.
Too bad for Turkey. Had they not become involved in this disastrous regime-change operation,
Erdogan could've maintained his balancing act with relative ease. The focus of his Government
would've been the continued development of what has become a large, dynamic economy capable of
playing the role of Bridge from the West to an East that included Russia.
I don't know how many rabbits can be left in Putin's hat. The US really wants its 30 years
of war to transform all the regions attacked back into desert and I really don't expect Putin
to go all the way to the wall to stop them. But he does want the world to know what's happening.
That's a fair assessment. What I wonder is how much Erdogan's Islamic beliefs effect his judgement
and how much his wanting to revive the Ottoman Empire effects it. Seems to me that betraying ISIS
would have been an easy concession for him to make to Russia. Yet he's still determined to get
rid of Assad and anyone who says that supports ISIS because ISIS is the only means of achieving
that result. Does Erdogan continue as an ISIS ally because of: 1) ideologically they are two sides
of the same coin? 2) The Saudis are sending him money he doesn't want to give up? 3) he wants
continued chaos to have the opportunity to take advantage at Syria's or the Kurds expense? 4)
he fears the US more than Russia? After all, America destroys countries, Russia uses diplomacy,
which is less threatening.
Could go on endlessly with all these questions. I suspect the easiest conclusion to reach is
that Erdogan is biding his time until the US election results. After all, you couldn't have a
more starker choice: Clinton and full support for anything anti-Russian or Trump and a healing
of relations, in which case being Russia's would be a good thing. I guess the fly in the ointment
is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including
Turkey.
I can't help but note that what Erodgan offers to each party – Russia, the US and Europe –
is negative. Doesn't that make it inevitable he ends up with no friends? For goodness sake, he
only runs Turkey – and a divided Turkey! He's a few centuries too late for that to strike any
existential fear into his adversaries. Overplaying his hand perhaps?
likbez
> I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster,
meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.
The next "neocon disaster" is the most probable outcome, but there one a countervailing factor
to "new American militarism" (Bacevich) type of adventurism. The idea that the establishing and
maintaining the global neoliberal empire by direct interventions is worth the price we pay as
it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace and prosperity is now discredited.
Prosperity is reserved to top one or ten percent and that factor can't be hidden any longer.
I think the US elite became split and a smaller part of Washington establishment started to
understand that the US neocons overextended the country in permanent wars for permanent peace.
In wars for extension of the global neoliberal empire. Much like Britain became exhausted from
British empire project before.
It well might be that soon the impoverishment of the population and, especially, lack of job
and shirking middle class, become an internal political instability factor that will force some
changes.
With the total surveillance in place the elite has probably pretty decent picture of the mood
of the population. And it is definitely not too encouraging for another reckless neocon experiment.
Also the power of MSM brainwashing started to wear down and neoliberalism as an ideology that
keeps the current Washington elite in power is in crisis.
The USSR crushed approximately in 20 years after the communist ideology became discredited
by the inability to raise the standard of living of the population. The same is happening with
neoliberalism. If we count from 2008, neoliberalism probably still has another 12 years or three
presidential terms. That means that if "this Trump" fails to be elected, the "next Trump" might
be much more dangerous for Washington neocons.
In a way, emergence of Trump is a sign that the elite can't govern the old way and population
does not want to live the old way. Degeneration of the US neoliberal elite is another factor.
Looks at quality of presidential candidates - Hillary and the bunch of narrow minded fanatics
they produced for Republican nomination as well as the level of Washington detachment from reality
- "let them eat cakes" stance , Those factors will only increase internal political tension that
already demonstrated itself in recent riots.
Situation with oil is also dangerous. Artificial suppression of oil prices destroys the US
oil producers. They probably will manage to keep the prices low in 2016. Then what?
After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour
not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are
cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have
zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and
maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global
neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative
to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this
is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive
to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on
the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
"... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote
in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined
them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
"... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international
disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international
relations. ..."
"... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges
at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme
international crime." ..."
"... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and
Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still
openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral
differences. ..."
"... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence. ..."
"... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use
of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age
males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.
..."
"... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis
of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
"... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of
engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes
that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
"... Left In The Dark ..."
"... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S.
special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years
old. ..."
"... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42
doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
"... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots Of War ..."
"... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized
beneath the surface. ..."
"... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the
resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other
Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions
of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international
law." ..."
"... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described
how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather
highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of
hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance,"
writes Nicolas J S Davies.
Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term
"normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space
shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for
rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards
that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.
Vaughan published her findings in her
prize-winning
book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA
, which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically
produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the
structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify
and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."
President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March
19, 2003.
When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss
of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board,
which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor
in these catastrophic failures.
The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional
failures, from
Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the
normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern
the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign
policy.
The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy
has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal
state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually
by much of the public at large.
Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA,
there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established
standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international
law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving
practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.
Normalizing the Abnormal
It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders
are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on
previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive
and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action
will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the
past.
This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability,
but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although
often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of
deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered
the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."
Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based
on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even
prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently
marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.
For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings,"
or "manhunts"
as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing
prohibitions against
assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a
deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.
Then, once the Obama administration had
massively
escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at
Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that
provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism
goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force,
as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .
Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them,
but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts
and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security."
These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they
will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.
The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as
a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders
deemed so vital that they enshrined them in
constitutionally binding
international treaties and U.S. law.
Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical
standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva
Conventions.
In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future
international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force
in international relations.
As President Franklin Roosevelt
told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent
structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances,
the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried
for centuries – and have always failed."
The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the
1928 Kellogg Briand
Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression
was already the "supreme international
crime."
No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia;
and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in
a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that
was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.
President-in-waiting
Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats
of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext
for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the
use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.
The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate
and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action
"to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the
Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.
The wars we have launched since 2001 have
killed
about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes
of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country
into unending violence and chaos.
Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force,
in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced
its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have
neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.
In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable
framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern
weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a
rug in the State Department basement.
Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of
engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections
they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:
–The
Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority
to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that
U.S. law defines as capital
crimes .
Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence.
A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very
basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated
or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior
officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret
or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.
–For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under
loosened
rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb-
and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. But Kate Clark of
the Afghanistan Analysts Network has documented that U.S. rules of engagement already permit
routine targeting of civilians based only on cell-phone records or "guilt by proximity" to
other people targeted for assassination. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has determined
that
only 4 percent of thousands of drone victims in Pakistan have been positively identified as
Al Qaeda members, the nominal targets of the CIA's drone campaign.
–Amnesty International's 2014 report
Left In The Dark documented a complete lack of accountability for the killing of civilians
by U.S. forces in Afghanistan since President Obama's escalation of the war in 2009 unleashed
thousands more air strikes and special forces night raids.
Nobody was charged over the
Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed
at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.
More recently,
U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff
and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead
to criminal charges either.
Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization
of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose
main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability
for war crimes.
The Cold War and Its Aftermath
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic,
diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away
with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.
But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit
their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against
the U.S.S.R.
General Dwight Eisenhower gave
a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms
of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has
ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation
was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."
But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a
"military-industrial
complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions
whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately,
Eisenhower lamented,
"God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well
as I do."
That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial
complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an
ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President,
the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and
admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers
represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy,
the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and
lobbying firms.
Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn
advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from
think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile
plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to
the public.
With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the
Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial
interests.
The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing
U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly
as Eisenhower warned.
Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots
Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign
policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.
In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and
Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and
militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and
Vietnam
into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S.
creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S.
wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to
allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.
The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and
institutionalized beneath the surface.
The Reagan Years
It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal
framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary
Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to
terrorize its people, the
International
Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.
The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its
foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its
withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.
When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto
the resolution. Since the 1980s, the
U.S.
has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined,
and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108
to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."
President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred
Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and
a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what
"had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age
nation."
But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military
superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine
Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's
the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a
"power dividend" sought
by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century
led the push for war on Iraq, while
"humanitarian
interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize
targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or
other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns,
safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an
"accountability-free zone."
Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to
hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own
genocidal
sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague,
he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.
In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government
was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization,
Albright told him he should
"get new lawyers."
By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization
of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly
marginalized.
Former Nuremberg prosecutor
Ben Ferencz told NPR
eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for
the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If
you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many
people who don't approve of what has happened."
But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion,
targeting
Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national
crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they
unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.
When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood
how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who
had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture
that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.
A Sociopathic Culture
Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can
come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,
the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.
President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address
on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President
Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)
This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival
of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled
institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability
or even catastrophic failure.
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of
our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons
and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough
to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political
movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.
As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we
are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in
U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.
Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and
Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President:
a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.
This is what "New
American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism
among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
Notable quotes:
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia
and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will
succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have
a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that
of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes … You don't tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose – having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell – performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview,
though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to
the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's
infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because … he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong – that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …" And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was
appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence
until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
... ... ...
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit
an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher
and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in
an article
titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence
officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
This week we also published
a terrific
piece
by John LaForge, which demolishes once and for one of America's most cherished lies: that
the US simply
had
to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities to end the war and save hundreds
of thousands of US and Japanese lies. Even Curtis "Mad Bomber" LeMay knew this was bullshit. So did
Ike, who sent word to Truman that he thought the plan was insane. You can see why the myth took root.
What nation that sees itself a force of goodness and virtue and humanity could live with itself after
incinerating two cities and unleashing nuclear terror upon the world?
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of
a Tuesday
morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where
there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with
unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the
integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US
build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed
to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles
in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned
that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against
Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part
of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.
Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in
Washington DC.
It seems like I've known Nicholas
Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking
reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a
book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it
was turned into a fine movie,
Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked,
a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots
of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment
of CounterPunch
Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of
a Tuesday
morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where
there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with
unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the
integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US
build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed
to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles
in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned
that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against
Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part
of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.
Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?
"... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
"... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
"... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
"... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
"... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word:
Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially
high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions
for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets.
(The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age
Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment")
in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy.
The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.
Bill, 7 hours ago
Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration
was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form
in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.
The report said "There is
the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,
and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting
Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama
and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known
as ISIL/ISIS.
Al, 14 hours ago
When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been
anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with
Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.
The world
would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while
the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911
operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with
pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.
Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...
This transformation of State Department into the branch of CIA started under
Madeleine Albright and reached crescendo during Hillary Clinton.
Notable quotes:
"... I personally have suggested investigating the person of the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional" diplomats in a state department. ..."
The new evidence of the US participation in the coup attempt in Turkey emerged.
Greek press published a photo made a day before the coup. It shows the US ambassador
in Turkey John Basse together with the Turkish senior officer, who looks like
one of the leaders of the coup Col. Ali Yazıcı (former military adviser to President
Erdogan). They had a private meeting in Cengelkoy café the day before the coup.
F. William Engdahl - historian, economic researcher, writer comments this:
The US right now is on a defensive. Erdogan has openly challenged leading
NATO generals. There is investigation of evidences of the US involvement
in the coup. I personally have suggested investigating the person of
the US Ambassador in Ankara John Bass, who was Ambassador in Republic of
Georgia in 2008 and who was involved in dirty business in Iraq, and also
seems to be involved in "Color revolution" in Kiev. There are very few "traditional"
diplomats in a state department.
"... CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians. ..."
"... Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. ..."
Watching CBS news as I write :
– Rebels rescuing women and children and taking to hospitals (looking staged for cameras)
– Air strikes destroy only remaining hospitals (videos showing piles of medical equipment which
did not appear to have been damaged by fire or blast)
– Syrian government would not respond to inquiries from CBS news about air strikes on hospitals
in Aleppo. The reporter inferred that since the government did not deny the air strikes, they
must be the perpetrators.
Amazing. Child beheaders are portrayed as rescuers of women and children and the forces trying
to defeat them are labeled as murderers.
Remarkable. But a time-tested technique frequently used in the past to portray Palestinian violence
against Israelis. And Hezbollah has been frequently accused as well of faking damage and deaths
in order to cultivate sympathy. I guess everybody does it. But it is in western interests to portray
'rebels', especially pet 'rebels' like the White Helmets, as closet humanitarians and the Syrian
government as the liver-eaters. I think a lot of observers just expect it now and automatically
discount about half of what is said.
Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the
SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries.
Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement
of Assad. After that, things will go one of two ways; Assad will be replaced by a compliant
western toady who will let Washington have a free hand to dabble, or he will be replaced by someone
ineffective who will lead the country to collapse, at which time the west will have to step in
to save it.
Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey.
Russia and Turkey: An 'alliance of misfits'?
It was a gesture that ended a crisis. The leaders of Russia and Turkey met on Tuesday to
shake hands and declare a formal end to an eight-month long war of words and economic sanctions.
Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump
contest.
Notable quotes:
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
"... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
"... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
"... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
"... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
"... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
"... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
"... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
"... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I
had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and
suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most
reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters
no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in
office illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average
under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double"
[that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black
unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year
high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900,
and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black
households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion
in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses
on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent
– more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in
admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She
stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade
Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment
coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn
about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human
needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum.
Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter.
This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of
what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for
their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the
savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism
etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI
and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively.
You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a
Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never
heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its
pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
Oy. ^__^
But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate
and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times,
Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary
from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy.
Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not
Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing,
takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she
KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I
go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT
nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and
lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism.
But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse
says more about you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person:
That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta
in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements
that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency,
has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah
she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
"... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
"Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The
Intercept].
The party left me
"The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support
Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated,
more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.
Once a
class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and,
importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"
Iran July crude output 3.63 mill b/d, flat from June, according to PlattsOil
OPEC survey. 1st time this year no month-on-month increase
Last month: Iran oil output 3.66 mln bpd in June, up 50,000 bpd on May and
up 750,000 bpd since sanctions were lifted.
Iran says, oil exports over 2.5 million bpd, near pre sanctions level
Iran: VP Jahangiri on Sunday: IPCs soon to be signed. $220 billion worth
of projects are ready for investment in the oil sector.
Iran are just finalising the petroleum contract details and will start engaging
foreign companies for JVs, although the coming Presidential elections might
mean they have to start all over again. I can't see there is that much difference
now to what was happening before the sanctions, but the important point
will be how much per barrel the outside companies can negotiate.
The oil is mostly in mature, carbonate reservoirs; often originally developed
without pressure support but now with gas and some water injection. I think
they are only getting around 20 to 25% recovery. They are looking for more
of the same to support increased production but also EOR (e.g. maybe miscible
gas?) to increase recovery. Gas injection is not cheap – the gas has to
be bought (might be 10 to 15% of the oil price if natural gas is used –
even if you get it back during end of life blow down it doesn't help current
NPV much), and the compressors, treatment plants and pipelines needed are
capitally and operationally intensive, and take some time to design and
install. So Iran will be asking the foreign majors to take on even more
debt and risk to increase production some years in the future, based on
probably flat rate per barrel payments. It will be interesting to see how
the negotiations turn out (e.g. what price per barrel the companies are
looking for, their appetite to take all the debt burden and how much they
get to know about the reservoirs), especially as the similar Iraq efforts
may be looking a bit disappointing to some at the moment.
With South Pars still ramping up they should be around 18 to 20% condensate
in their overall production mix, so maybe they took condensate out of the
export's while their were sanctions. Alternatively they have a strong petrochemical
industry and use LPG for domestic car fuel as well so maybe the export mix
is different.
Iran's refinery expansion program includes construction of five new refineries
and expansion of existing plants.
At least three of the new processing plants should accommodate the country's
rising condensate supplies:
• Already under construction in Bandar Abbas, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery,
due for startup in 2017, will have capacity to process 360,000 b/d of condensate
from South Pars field
• Also under construction is 480,000-b/d gas condensate refinery in Siraf,
which should process stabilized gas condensate feedstock from different
phases of South Pars.
• 120,000-b/d Pars condensate refinery in Shiraz, scheduled for startup
in 2025.
GAZPROM wins. Gas will flow thru Turkey to Europe. The amounts will
increase. Ukraine will soon no longer be a conduit, and lose all clout when
they try to dodge paying the bill for their own.
Probably back in the
Russian sphere of influence in a few years, assuming the EU won't pay their
gas bill, and the present leadership will be wards of the EU somewhere in
Germany. Actually, were Russia wise, they would just refuse gas to the
Ukraine at any price. Surrender or freeze. Maybe needlessly heavy handed.
Just impose increasingly crushing conditions. With a smile.
Europe Nat Gas consumption:
1.132 billion cubic meters/day (from mazama and converted to m^3)
minus Europe Nat Gas production
–> about 570 million cubic meters/day imported (9.5% increase in 2015) X 365 = 208 billion cubic
meters/yr
Nordstream pipeline 55 billion cubic meters/yr plans to double by 2019 to 110 billion m^3/yr.
That's Gazprom thru Germany.
Ukraine pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 142 billion cubic meters/year.
Belarus pipeline(s) into Europe presently: 38 billion cubic meters/year
Adds to 235 billion cubic meters/yr which is 20 some billion more than the Euro number above
because some is going to Macedonia, Serbia and other none EU countries. Relatively inconsequential.
Note that the popular phrasing that Russia only provides 31% of Europe's gas is almost certainly
bogus. More like 45-50%.
Now then, Nordstream 2 (that's all GAZPROM gas) will be chopped from Ukraine's flow. Because
GAZPROM can just force Belarus gas to be used by not flowing enough thru Ukraine.
The TANAP pipeline is to flow only 16 billion cubic meters/yr of gas from a non Russia source
thru Turkey.
The agreement just reached between Putin and Erdogan is for a pipeline carrying Russian gas
at 63 billion cubic meters/yr. Turkey will burn 14 of that (they burn 45 billion m^3 /yr) leaving
49 to flow to Europe.
The EU is already trying to interfere, saying there is insufficient capacity in pipelines north
thru Greece and other countries, but clearly Greece will burn it and that reduces what's left
going north.
Bottom line. Nordstream 2 will be a new 55 billion m^3/yr of GAZPROM gas. TurkeyStream will
flow another 49 billion m^3/yr. This will be new from present flows. And Ukraine's flow is 142.
They'll be reduced to under 40.
Ukraine gets almost $3 billion/yr in transit fees.
They have demanded just about a double
of that 5 mos ago. GAZPROM has not agreed. The Ukraine transit pipeline system apparently
also needs $19B in maintenance work GAZPROM had planned to pay for before Ukraine broke
relations with Russia. No longer.
Ukraine GDP 90B in 2015 and is falling this year.
So either the EU picks up the $19B plus the $3B/yr in transit fees Ukraine will lose
starting late next year (plus cost of Ukraine's consumption itself(they are 5th largest
in Europe)), or the fat lady sings.
BTW Poland just completed an LNG import terminal. Look at those flow numbers above in
the thread. Now . . . understand Poland is talking about sending Qatari gas from the LNG
terminal to Lithuania and the rest of Europe, to reduce horrible dependence on Russian gas,
even if LNG gas is priced 3X higher than piped GAZPROM gas. But yes, Poland is going to
send gas to other countries from their LNG terminal.
Oh, and the new LNG terminal has a capacity of 5 billion m^3/yr. Repeat. 5 billion m^3/year.
That's max in its final form.
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
"... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
"... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare,"
says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary
of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years
ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him
-- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.
The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge
was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to
run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly
incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming
forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."
Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing"
and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is
coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth
noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially
put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been
called into question.
But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's
critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have
said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some
of it for distribution."
In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook
quoted an email from a senior administration
official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as
he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already
been plenty of competition for that title.
Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's
ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job,
he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record,
nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.
Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than
most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast,"
he said in 2002,
"but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapterhe writes that he voted
to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts,"
and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."
And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:
That "Iraq is not going to turn out
the way that we were promised it was."
That the Iraqi people "want the United States
out of Iraq."
That the Iraq War
was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."
As I wrote
back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We
often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even
if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's
why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor
with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest
of the country. As Senator Jack Reed
said
of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout
his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.
"When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel
said in 2006, "of how we
went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went
in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."
And that kind of thinking
is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder,
not that he needs one, of what war is really like.
"Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president
said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's
something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom
who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel
pointed out the
fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown
off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."
The president
added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind
-- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."
And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate
pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's
about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times'
Jim Rutenberg
put it,
"The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old
dispute."
He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was,
and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it
(badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea
that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.
Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful
undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?
It's
not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter
called Hagel's
nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone
who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly
controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.
A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham
contrasted
Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike
McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there,
it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it
since then, right?
The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters
and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of
intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping
at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain
finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel
said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before
we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug
Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work,
per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation,
says, adding,
"Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."
A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua
Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to
subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick
put it,
Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in
the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems
entirely random.
Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the
question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"
He's referring to the
fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's
defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve
a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he
also said that use of reductivist
buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the
fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means
of making it better.
But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush).
He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the
Weekly Standard, offers
as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged:
Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists
-- have come forward to counter that allegation."
Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch,
who, according to the
Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel,
when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation
you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."
What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this.
In response, a CFR official
toldAl-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations
takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take
no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib
writes:
Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of
the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that,
Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst
nightmare," says
Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."
In the first installment, Howard Fineman
writes
that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and
wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough
to turn great promise into true greatness."
We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind
us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves,
hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.
There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I
would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a
long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in
Jewish World
Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon
agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears
when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of
people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions
in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in
Russia.
George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S.
kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all
deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past
quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the
civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and
George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the
hundreds of
thousands. This includes at least
200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a
U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S.
military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago.
(Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).
And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of
journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos
repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump
asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order
the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of
times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos
is.
Reports that US General John F. Campbell was the organizer of a coup d'etat in Turkey surprised
no one. Recall that the July 25th edition of the Turkish Yeni Safak, close to President Recep Erdogan's
AKP party,
reported
that General John F. Campbell, former U.S. commander of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, was the organizer of the July 15th military
coup attempt in Turkey. The sources stated that he was also involved in the financing of the coup
participants and the reshuffling of air base personnel while visiting the base on the eve of the
coup attempt. After an unsuccessful coup attempt the Turkish generals
Cahit Bakır and Şener Topçu were detained in Dubai airport. Both worked with Campbell in Afghanistan,
where they commanded the Turkish contingent within the NATO forces.
However, these are not the only clues in the Turkish coup plot which directly points to NATO as
the mastermind of the coup. There are some other information regarding this issue:
1. The same coup participants stationed at the Turkish Air Force, were the most NATO-integrated
structures of the Turkish Military, and this gave to the observers the first evidence of NATO involvement
in the military putsch. The Incirlik Air Base, where the US military was based was used by the putschists
to launch air strikes on the Turkish parliament. The base is jointly used by the US and Turkish Air
Forces. After the coup attempt, it was suppressed by the Turkish commander of the base. General Bekir
Ercan Van was arrested by the troops loyal to Erdogan. General Van sought asylum from the United
States but was denied. In the aftermath of the coup, external electrical power from Turkey was cut
to the base and a Turkish no fly order had been put into effect for US military aircraft in the area.
On July 30th the base was blocked by Turkish troops on information about a second coup attempt.
2. From the very beginning Western media spread disinformation, that President Erdogan flee the
country. American NBS mentioned high ranking US military, proving the information. Thus the US military
was directly involved in the disinformation during the most critical early hours of the failed coup
operation.
The US alternative media Newsbud
has identified Former NATO Commander-Retired US Army General John F. Campbell as the 'likely'
NBC News' source.
3. The majority of those arrested after the coup attempt were people related to the NATO structure.
The the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaking at a forum on security organized
by the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, declared that after the coup "many of our interlocutors
have been purged or arrested".
Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe confirmed this information,
stating that:
"Some of the officers that we have our relationships with in Turkey are now either detained, in
some cases retired as a result of the coup"
Thus, NATO de-facto recognized, that their people were in the ranks on the presumptive putschists
4. It was revealed that NATO aggressively promoted their agents, who then actively participated
in the coup:
According to Erdogan's supporters, thousands of Turkish officers recruited to Gulen's network
went up the ladder in their military career on "on high speed" , reaching ranks of generals and
colonels in key positions. In sharp contrast, in the Kemalist army base, their former fellows remained
captains or majors.
5. The three most important regiments which participated in the coup were part of Turkey's 'NATO
Rapid Deployable Corps'. The registration plates on military vehicles of the putschists, show that
they belonged to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, stationed in the Istanbul district of Kartal, and the
66th Mechanised Infantry Brigade, which is based in Hasdal together with the 6th Regiment. The transcript
of WhatsApp messagess of the plotters,
provided by Bellingcat showed that the group in communications also used the emblem and slogan
used by NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (a quote of Ataturk) : "Peace at home, peace in the world.".
6. And finally, once again the news from Yeni Safak. It revealed information that the Guvercinlik
First Army Aviation Regiment's Maintenance Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat told
prosecutors that the US was ready to help them to assassinate Erdogan during the coup.
"Americans were to provide the exact coordinates of Erdoğan, if the team was unable to find him
in the hotel. They also said that up to four persons with civil dress have been tracking Erdoğan
", – the Turkish newspaper quotes the rebel.
The same fact, that Erdogan's newspaper attacks the US and NATO so fiercely corroborates that
Turkish authorities are preparing for harsh anti-US moves, including leaving NATO. And they have
a lot of the evidence of NATO's involvement in the coup.
"... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
"... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
"... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing
to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians,
by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept
saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror
attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.
According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening.
They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable
new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet
any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest
advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war
against "the Crusaders".
The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare
for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia,
Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis
in NATO.
We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history
proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds
by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that
we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.
Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration
of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington
to take its decisions.
American Special Forces within Nusra? If true that's rich...
Notable quotes:
"... Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces? ..."
"... Natalya Nougayrčde hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. ..."
"... But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrčde seems quite clear that Assad is not losing ..."
Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at
using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American
Special Forces?
Natalya Nougayrčde hits all the familiar high points in
this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis,
and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image
as a serious military power. Putin was in the KGB. It has absolutely fuck-all to do with
the article, but Putin was in the KGB, just to be sure you know. It was terribly embarrassing
for the Soviet Union to be defeated by a ragtag army of Afghan Mujaheddin, but apparently it is
not embarrassing at all for America to experience the
profound failure of its military policy in Afghanistan . Or perhaps it is embarrassing,
since it dares not leave.
But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrčde seems quite clear that Assad
is not losing, although she plainly would be delighted if that were the case. She also points
out that Aleppo is the last remaining significant opposition stronghold. If al Nusra is such an
awesome fighting force, why are they surrounded in the last significant objective they hold? Why
are they not spreading out and taking more territory?
Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia
– a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.
July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this
event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to
be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually
collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again
be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union
of China and Russia. "
If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of
China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity;
its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a
realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe
is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse.
Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything
that may separate them.
And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves.
The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic
miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.
I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field
in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly
and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values,
and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.
Least we forget what the British empire was about then:
In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had
shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.
Stating the historical record so plainly is shocking - but it's true, and the consequences
of that act are still being felt today.
From Charles Dickens "Our Mutual Friend", the heroine Bella Wilfer is fantasizing about her beloved
Papa becoming a rich opium trader:
"Now Pa was going to China in that handsome three-masted ship, to bring home opium, with
which he would forever cut out Chicksey, Veneering, and Stobble, and to bring home silks and shawls
without end for the decoration of his charming daughter."
Chairman Xi Jinping is making Russia an offer that
Russia can't refuse?
Notable quotes:
"... "We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States, regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West." ..."
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually collapsing,
as is the US economy -- it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again be as
it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union of
China and Russia."
"We are now seeing the aggressive actions on the part of the United States,
regarding both Russia and China. I believe that Russia and China could create an alliance toward
which NATO will be powerless and which will put an end to the imperialist desires of the West."
Great link, thanks.
Given the real world politic, I don't see that Russia has much choice. The lack of pressure by
the PRC is an important note; Russia isn't being coerced but rather romanced.
My fear has been, and remains, the bat shit crazy neo-cons and their inability to let go of the
imperialist dream of world hegemon.
[Aug 07, 2016] Neocon from Foreign Policy magazine are still dreaming about dismembering and colonizing Russi
Notable quotes:
"... No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and the Russians are savages. ..."
"This summer hasn't seen a lot of setbacks for Russia, not even for its Olympic hopefuls.
Crimea has been annexed and fully absorbed, with the blessing of Republican presidential front-runner
Donald Trump, who also calls NATO "obsolete." Russian intelligence services have allegedly
been pawing through the emails of U.S. political parties, and releasing them at their leisure.
Turkey, in the wake of a failed coup attempt, is rushing to mend fences with Moscow."
Couple of things, my unfellow whiner. First, Crimea has been annexed and absorbed prior to
Trump's statement. Ergo it could not have happened with his blessing, since his blessing could
only come after the events took place, but what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP?
Second, at this point I think it's safe to conclude that every intelligence service of any powerful
countries studied those e-mails, no need for allegedly. And we don't know if it's the Russians
that are releasing them. Third, Turkey rushed to mend ties with Moscow before the coup, not after,
but then again, what's temporal physics to a "journalist" from FP? This article promises to deliver
mirth, let's read on!
"All of which makes last month's decision by the Polish antitrust regulator to file a formal
objection against Russia's proposed "Nord Stream 2" gas pipeline more noteworthy. That regulatory
spanner could be Europe's last and best chance to halt construction of a pipeline that critics
say will divide Europe, beggar Ukraine, and reinforce Moscow's energy dominance for another generation."
That's a big deal? Poland's opposition to Nord Stream 2 has been well document throughout the
ages. Ukraine is already beggared, but let's all blame that on Russia. Moscow's energy dominance
comes from the EU being a voracious money swallowing pit, and not enough solar/wind/nuclear powerplants
being built, due to, wait for it… lack of funding! Those funds are in places like Syria and Iraq.
Oh, and won't the lack of construction divide Europe? Cause I doubt that Russia's going to prop
up Ukraine, so if Southern Europe has no gas and Northern Europe has some, won't that be divisive?
"For years, Russia has sought to keep Europe dependent on its exports of energy, especially
through natural gas pipelines. But Moscow is also desperate to cut out potentially meddlesome
middlemen, like Ukraine, which sits smack between Russia's natural gas fields and millions of
European consumers. That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe,
infuriating Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees."
Oh really? So Kaliningrad's border with EU member states are somehow attached to Ukraine? Intriguing,
very intriguing, did someone skip his geography class?
"A decade ago, Russia enlisted former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder to help it build a
pipe across the Baltic from Russia to Germany, sidestepping Ukraine: Nord Stream. Then Russia
tried to build another pipeline, "South Stream," across the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria,
also bypassing Ukraine, but that was quashed by the European Union in 2014. Then, Moscow invented
the idea of a "Turkish Stream," another proposed Black Sea pipe, one landing in Turkey, outside
of Brussels's reach. But last fall, Turkish F-16s shot down a Russian jet, and with it hopes of
any immediate Russo-Turkish energy cooperation."
Really? Because in the beginning, the article claimed that "Turkey…is rushing to mend fences
with Moscow." So they're rushing to cooperate, ergo there won't be cooperation? Stellar "journalism"
absolutely stellar.
'… But the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection last month determined that
Nord Stream 2 - which wouldn't even touch Polish territory - could harm consumers. "The Office
found that the concentration might lead to restriction of competition," it tentatively concluded,
adding that the project could "further strengthen" Gazprom's "dominant position." …'
Looks as if the Poles and the FP writer have a strange idea of what free market competition
is. Their idea seems to be that the more middlemen there are, taking their cut, oops, share of
the transit fees, and passing the costs down the pipeline, the more competition there is. Plus
the journalist fails to see what's wrong with Ukraine interrupting the flow of gas from Russia
to the EU to get transit fee income, unless of course he thinks extortion is a legitimate way
of doing business.
That gives Kiev the ability to interrupt Russian gas flows headed to Europe, infuriating
Moscow, but also earns Ukraine billions of dollars in much-needed transit fees.
So, when Ukraine interrupts gas flow to Europe to "infuriate" Moscow, Europe is not infuriated
to contend with a crippling gas shortage? And how long is Russia expected to rely on a transit
country that likes to infuriate its customer? Gawd, this guy is stupid.
No kidding; Kiev's ability to interrupt gas flows to Europe – which the west previously would
not even discuss, since it was obviously Russia using energy as a weapon – is presented as just
kittenish playfulness, and such an interruption is not a big problem because it's so amusing to
watch the clever Ukrainians tweak Moscow's nose. All in good fun, of course, and transit fees
are a right. There's just nothing about going around Ukraine to prevent that from happening which
could be described as good fun, or tweaking Kiev's nose. Because the Ukrainians are cute, and
the Russians are savages.
It looks like Russia is not going to be told that it must continue transiting gas through Ukraine,
although Ukraine has been on its best behavior where transit is concerned over the last little
while (to show how reliable it can be), and transit through Ukraine has actually increased, a
fact they lose no opportunity to point out (as if to say, you need us now more than ever). But
Kiev reserves the right to hike the transit fees whenever it needs a little more struttin' money,
and while the obstructive talk is on hold for now, the Ukrainians love to shoot their mouths off
and have made it clear they will simply take gas intended for Europe if Russia restricts Ukraine's
supply (although they have brought their Russia supplies way, way down by buying Russian gas from
other European countries, bought with gas money given it by the IMF.
Russia would very likely agree to continue supplying Ukraine through its own pipeline network,
probably even at a quite attractive price – but if Ukraine started any of its special-needs antics,
Russia would not have to worry about Europe's supply going through Ukraine's decrepit pipeline
system. Ukraine could be cut off without a second thought, as any reasonable supplier would do
if it is not getting paid or is otherwise abused by its customer – and as Europe would do in a
second if it were the other way round and Russia was spending billions for European gas transited
through Ukraine, which the Ukrainians poached at their leisure.
"... Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and the gas delivery point is at the border. ..."
"... Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian gas. ..."
Why does Nord Stream operate at less than 100% capacity? Because of
capacity restrictions imposed by Brussels – just remember that the next time that poxy twat
Sefcovic starts blabbering on about why do we need Nord Stream II when the original pipeline only
operates at half-capacity? And he will, be sure of it. If Nord Stream could operate at 100% capacity,
it would be half the cost of transiting through Ukraine. Just how much charity is Russia expected
to offer, especially considering Ukraine imposed a transit rate hike last year for the privilege
of using its leaky, whistling, rotting pipeline network?
Expect this issue to take center stage in the coming months, because northwest Europe, with
declining production of its own gas, is going to need a reliable solution, and should be getting
pretty tired of propping up Ukraine, Romania and Poland the perennial malcontents. At the present
time Poland's regulatory commission is holding up Nord Stream II just because it can – but don't
expect that to last. The EU is soon going to be faced with the choice of a Russian gas pipeline
in whose operation they will at least have input and in whose construction European companies
will share some of the lolly – or a Russo-Turkic pipeline in which they have no say at all and
the gas delivery point is at the border.
And really, the
EU's arguments make it look like it was dropped on its head as an infant. If Turkish Stream
goes ahead, the story goes, it will increase dependency on Russian gas, but block Caspian supplies.
How? Caspian supplies (Azerbaijan) are supposed to come via the Southern Gas Corridor, which the
EU keeps saying it is pressing on with but has yet to lay a foot of. Remind you of the talking-shop
that Nabucco became? How much money was pissed away on that, and they didn't build any of it.
But the argument seems to be that if Turkish Stream is built, the Southern Gas Corridor cannot
be. Why not? What's stopping you?
Price. The EU is scared it cannot do it as cheaply as Russia. And it probably can't. How does
that bear on the consumer? Sefcovic already told you – it's not all about price. What price freedom,
my friends? Aren't you willing to pay more for your gas so you can say it is Azerbaijani gas instead
of Putin's gas? What do you say, European consumer? But it keeps going on about how Turkey and
everybody else will get cheap gas, but is still trying to frighten Europeans that if they depend
on Russian gas it will go up. Why would it, if it's costing Russia less to ship it?
Kiev should be getting scared. Because there is an increased chance Brussels will cave on the
Nord Stream II issue, considering the factors I've already laid out. Or else Putin will build
Turkish Stream, and the EU will have to build its own infrastructure to hook up at the border,
and either solution will bypass Ukraine – through which, incidentally, transit was up 21% in the
first months of 2016, as the Ukrainians try to showcase what reliable partners they are. But that
route fails on price. Wah wah wahhhhhh….sorry, Kiev.
But even if the price of gas did rise due to EU dithering, Russia could still undercut American
LNG price. It comes down to how much are you willing to pay to proudly say "No thank you, Mr.
Putin"? It's like Sikorski and his Polish LNG terminal, where he said it costs more, but at least
it flies the Polish flag, or like how you could probably sleep with the starlet of your dreams…if
you were willing to do anything to get her. Prostitute yourself, sell drugs, move to another country,
completely change your lifestyle, whatever it took. A lot of things that are attainable in the
abstract are simply not worth it. the UK might be able to get by with no gas imports at all –
it still has a little, and they could go back to coal and wood-burning fireplaces like on "Upstairs,
Downstairs" (my ex loved that program", and theoretically they could do it, with just a little
of that famed British pluck and a stiff upper lip. But nobody wants to do it, because the illusion
of independence is not worth behaving so stupidly. It has become a game to see who can get their
people deeper in self-denial so that their leader can thumb his nose at Putin.
It is a bit like Hinckley Point – the UK can't be reliant on Chinese involvement for security
reasons (although the French suffered too when the agreement was frozen). Our elites try to get
away with it by keeping the population in a state of fear. But they also reward their own chums
with contracts, no matter what the cost.
So, yes, I do think they'll try to get away with it, whatever the cost (they'll just blame
the utility companies).
There would be the entry of an opposition political figure, telling the populace as much as it
would listen to about how an alternate source which is cheaper is available but our political
masters make us pay more in order to score political points with their master and perhaps
advance themselves and their positions…if the situation were reversed and Russia were dependent
on European gas, and Putin was trying to wean the Russians off of it in favour of a more-expensive
but more exclusionary alternative.
In my opinion, Russia needs to do that more. Sponsor opposition politicians in enemy countries,
I mean. It's a go-to western tactic.
Expect Brussels to accuse Russia of 'dumping' gas on the EU market, regardless of any truth. Russia
could still reduce price and make a profit, ergo not 'dumping' in any sense. I would then expect
all those new gas reservoirs being built by Germany, Gasprom and others to fill up on cheap Russian
gas.
I have a question though. If gazprom fills up its CEEC/Balkan reservoirs when gas is X price
at X time, is that the fixed price of the gas or if the world price drops, it can sell it for
less without it technically being 'dumping'? Does anyone know what the mechanism is?
Here's those good ole western values again on display here, this time directed at the peons in
Europe. You wouldn't know it from our posturing politicians but fuel poverty is a massive problem
in Europe affecting between 50 to 125 million people. The health consequences are dire from thousands
of excess deaths in winter's maw to increases in chronic lung and respiratory diseases. And would
you believe it but the Baltic chihuahuas, ever-reliably yapping at all things Russian, have large
numbers of their populations living in fuel poverty. Ever read anything by Edward Lucas on this?
No, me neither. So, I couldn't really do justice to how angry the behaviour of these morons makes
me….people die before their time every year because they can't afford to properly heat their homes
and these geniuses in Brussels paid for by us are totally OK with rocketing fuel prices as long
as they can say they poked a finger in Vladimir Putin's eye.
Reply
In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface,
the necessary effect was already achieved.
Notable quotes:
"... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
"... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17:
you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that
leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did
with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted
recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for
a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable
actors.
MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian
economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own
echo chamber.
Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has
been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment
of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking
and long term thinking based on false premise.
"... The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
"... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
"... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
"... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
"... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
"... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
"... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates
and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency
documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against
the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.
The United States is,
by far, the world's
most aggressive
nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping
on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers
in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new
is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.
There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers
of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking
to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the
Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.
In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to
the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies
through eavesdropping and other espionage.
Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar,
with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked,
shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.
NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its
last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA
contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's
leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peńa Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peńa won
that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peńa's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can
filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The
technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it
as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor,
President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to
President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection
Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world.
It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional
eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San
Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret
city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's
headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police
force and post office.
And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the
cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force
and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star
admiral, Michael S. Rogers.
Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters
is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot,
$896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts.
This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.
In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow
with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to
his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way
from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network
attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."
The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield
for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents.
One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."
The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing
frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the
same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace"
just as "today we dominate air and space."
Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network
cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.
One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted
to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet
provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of
Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It
took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.
While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking
virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.
One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building
a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another
operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer
systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.
Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it
looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the
Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous
potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The
possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.
Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues
to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying
and cyberwarfare.
In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama
administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment,
in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.
Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential
election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue
on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.
(James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)
"... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
"... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
"... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
(ANTIMEDIA)
As the United States continues to
develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate,
America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin
that Russia will respond as necessary.
In his most
recent
attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a
new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business
associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear
hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum.
"We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know,"
he said.
Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining
and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian
threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved
instrumental in reaching an
agreement with Iran that should
put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.
The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United
States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the
systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:
"They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability,
and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from
aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part
of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with
an aggressive missile strike system."
This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite
American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would
not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system
has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently
in Romania.
Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.
"How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do
is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"
Putin stated.
Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's
implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile
defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an
upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without
this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout
the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic
balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale
wars and military conflicts.
Following
George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the
1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with
no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.
Putin warned:
"Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field.
We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations.
Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only
for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world,
which guarantees peace on the planet.
Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin,
"the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to
colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter
the path we are on. As Albert Einstein
famously stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
"... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
"... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
"... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
"... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
"... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
"... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
"... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,
is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional
development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history
itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are
parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.
Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's
account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of
World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that
region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no
American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."
Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was
the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action
throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the
U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.
The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it
weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement
with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)
Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then
invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm
in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American
forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling
Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.
A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under
Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally,
George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of
"regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put
into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the
void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a
precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.
Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change
in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled
as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer
to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in
the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.
Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20,
1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with
oil.
Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure
Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security
bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the
Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf
affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."
"Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which
in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in
the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S.
interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging
Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists,
token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.
(Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist,
as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later.
Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as
is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)
Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and
Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created
the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen.
Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded
flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."
Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other
Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars
with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia
would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged
when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein
and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel
in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an
army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent
bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow
the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would
target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.
Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another
superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S.,
through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents.
Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:
Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle
East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second
and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism
and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting
to subvert the Soviet Union.
America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan
a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.
Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of
the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered
the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence.
Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they
expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle
Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the
meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after
the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to
redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time
were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation
Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.
The
Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing
Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan
(or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where
the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era
intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he
writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria
and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."
Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake,
the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and
bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own
liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging
war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."
Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson
of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American
freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.
"... "In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other," Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on." ..."
"... In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent, oppressed people are more susceptible to it. ..."
"... What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." ..."
"... Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these points, from his background within the U.S. government. ..."
"... The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11 attacks on its website FactCheck.org. ..."
"... Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015 it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close allies," the State Department remarked. ..."
"... During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today. ..."
"... In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas and ISISes of the world. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence. It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today. ..."
"... Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy. ..."
"... The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism: It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... "There was no 'overthrow.'" ..."
"... I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires, and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition and explosives are held. ..."
"... one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts. look at the 'carlyle group.' ..."
"... It's no wonder the average Middle Easterner thinks the US is behind ISIS. ..."
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating
in it." So advised world-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky, one of the most cited thinkers
in human history.
The counsel may sound simple and intuitive - that's because it is. But when it comes to Saudi
Arabia, the U.S. ignores it.
Saudi Arabia is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic extremism. It is also a close U.S. ally.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia is a theocratic absolute monarchy that governs based on an extreme interpretation of
Sharia (Islamic law). It is so extreme, it has been widely compared to ISIS. Algerian journalist
Kamel Daoud characterized Saudi Arabia in an
op-ed in The New York Times as "an ISIS that has made it."
"Black Daesh, white Daesh," Daoud
wrote, using the Arabic acronym for ISIS. "The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands,
destroys humanity's common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is
better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia."
"In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other,"
Daoud continued. "This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic
alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance
with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the
ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on."
In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has
spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide. It
infuses its fundamentalist ideology in the ostensible charity work it performs, often targeting poor
Muslim communities in countries like Pakistan or places like refugee camps, where uneducated, indigent,
oppressed people are more susceptible to it.
Whether elements within Saudi Arabia support ISIS is contested. Even if Saudi Arabia does not
directly support or fund ISIS, however, Saudi Arabia gives legitimacy to the extremist ideology ISIS
preaches.
What is not contested, on the other hand, is that Saudi elites in the business community and
even segments of the royal family support extremist groups like al-Qaida. U.S. government
cables leaked by WikiLeaks admit "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source
of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."
Supporters of the Saudi monarchy resist comparisons to ISIS. The regime itself
threatened
to sue social media users who compared it to ISIS. Apologists point out that ISIS and Saudi Arabia
are enemies. This is indeed true. But this is not necessarily because they are ideologically different
(they are similar) but rather because they threaten each other's power.
There can only be one autocrat in an autocratic system; ISIS' self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi refuses to kowtow to present Saudi King Salman, and vice-versa. After all, the Saudi
absolute monarch partially justifies his rule through claiming that it has been blessed and ordained
by God, and if ISIS' caliph insists the same, they can't both be right.
Some American politicians have criticized the U.S.-Saudi relationship for these very reasons.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham has been perhaps the most outspoken critic. Graham has called extremist
groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda "a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi organizational support."
... ... ...
Sen. Graham has nevertheless insisted that the possibility that elements of the Saudi royal family
supported the 9/11 attackers should not be ruled out. In his 2004 book "Intelligence Matters: The
CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror," Graham further argued these
points, from his background within the U.S. government.
The independent, non-partisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
has detailed the allegations and possible evidence - or lack thereof - of Saudi ties to the 9/11
attacks on its website FactCheck.org.
Whatever its role, what is clear is that Saudi Arabia's support for violent extremist groups is
well documented. Such support continues to this very day. In Syria, the Saudi monarchy has backed
al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's Syrian affiliate. The U.S. government has bombed al-Nusra, but its ally Saudi
Arabia is funding it.
Yet despite its brutality and support for extremism, the U.S. considers the Saudi monarchy a "close
ally." The State Department calls Saudi Arabia "a strong partner in regional security and counterterrorism
efforts, providing military, diplomatic, and financial cooperation." It stated in September 2015
it "welcomed" the appointment of Saudi Arabia to the head of a U.N. human rights panel. "We're close
allies," the State Department remarked.
... ... ...
During the Cold War - and particularly during the Soviet war in Afghanistan throughout the
1980s - the U.S., hand-in-hand with Saudi Arabia, actively encouraged religious extremism. They stressed
that socialist and communist movements were often atheistic, and pitted far-right religious fundamentalists
against the secular leftists. The remnants of this policy are the extremist movements we see throughout
the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia today.
In order to decimate the left in the Cold War, the U.S. emboldened, armed and trained the
extreme-right. The Frankenstein's monsters it created in the pursuit of this policy are the al-Qaedas
and ISISes of the world.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia is truly a country that was created through Western imperialism. Before Roosevelt
met with King Ibn Saud, Saudi Arabia was a relatively weak country with little global political influence.
It was Western, and principally U.S., patronage that turned Saudi Arabia into what it is today.
The Saudi monarchy presents itself as modernized, yet it is still feudal in essence. There is
almost no developed civil society in Saudi Arabia, because the regime has made all independent institutionalized
forms of dissent illegal.
Women are essentially second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia. They are given nowhere near equal
rights with men - who basically own their wives and daughters - and cannot travel without men accompanying
them. Unemployment rates are skyrocketing among women, even though many are educated, and they were
only just granted the right to vote in December 2015 - although they do not have any actual effectual
politicians to vote for under an absolute monarchy.
... ... ...
If it is truly interested in stopping terrorism, then, the U.S. and the rest of the West will
heed Chomsky's advice. The U.S. will realize that there really is an easy way to stop terrorism:
It will stop participating in it, and end its alliance with Saudi Arabia.
Ben Norton is a politics staff writer at Salon. You can find him on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton.
Declassified documents describe in detail how US – with British help – engineered coup against
Mohammad Mosaddeq
Monday 19 August 2013
The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup
against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also
show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement
in his overthrow.
On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling,
the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified
CIA documents.
"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet
was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at
the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history
titled The Battle for Iran.
The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe
in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and
Operation Boot by Britain's MI6...
Mosaddeq's overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American
politicians, consolidated the Shah's rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution.
It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west's oil interests in the
country.
The archived CIA documents include a draft internal history of the coup titled "Campaign to
install a pro-western government in Iran", which defines the objective of the campaign as "through
legal, or quasi-legal, methods to effect the fall of the Mosaddeq government; and to replace it
with a pro-western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister".
{The Nixon administration created a "Twin
Pillars" Middle East policy, in which the U.S.-backed monarchies in Saudi Arabia and Iran
were considered pillars of stability. In 1953, the CIA backed a coup that overthrew Iran's first
and only democratically elected head of state, Mohammad Mosaddegh}
That is a rather odd correlation -- Mr. Nixon was inaugurated in 1973 -- 20 yrs after the CIA/MI6
(Mossad was likely lurking, too) toppled Mr. Mosaddegh.
The Nixon effect stems from Mr. Kissinger's amorous connection -- he made love to Saudi Arabia,
and they had a child named Petro-$. It was the birth of the greatest financial con in Human history.
If one has a grasp of the nature of the Supreme Power behind that curtain, the events unfolding
in the world right now, make much sense.
I've seen for myself the investments that Saudi Arabia has made in Kyrgyzstan to turn their
Muslim majority into a destabilizing force. They pay for brand new Mosques with gleaming spires,
and these are the locations where the local Muslims become radicalized and where guns, ammunition
and explosives are held.
They were successful in starting an armed revolution against of the Kyrgis government in 2010
in this otherwise peaceful country where Muslims and non-Muslims had coexisted for years in peace
and harmony. (During my visit, I even had a Muslim business owner thank George Bush during my
visit for our USAID support - I was shocked. Muslims are not the enemy. Extremists and authoritarian
governments like SA are. They don't want the two cultures to mix.)
Saudi Arabia is by far the biggest opponent to peace in the Middle East.
one reason the usa government loves saudi is that the government activities enrich the
officers of state. dubya not only promoted a war, he enriched his family with munitions contracts.
look at the 'carlyle group.'
Until the problem of Saudi Arabia is solved, the problems in the Middle East will not be solved.
We thought we could go in the back door by changing Iraq, but we only made things worse. Take
away the oil and we would have invaded after 9/11.
The royal family is basically paying off the radicals to leave them, and their wealth, alone.
Americans have to accept that fact that the U.S. and other western governments prefer fundamentalism
- which sells us oil - to democracy, socialism or Arab nationalism. It loves a good theocracy.
These really are feudal regimes.
In Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Iraq and now Syria, the U.S. and its allies have
DIRECTLY funded Al Quada and its offshoots. Much of the weaponry sent from Libya to Syria for
'secular freedom fighters' ended up in the hands of Daesh. The U.S. has worked to crush partially
secular regimes over and over again, even using the early Islamic Hamas fundamentalists in Palestine
against the PLO, DFLP, PFLP etc. Before that they undermined Nasser, Mossedegh, and ANY left nationalists
in sight.
All for oil. It is still the oil barons and the militarists that back the Saudis and this will
not change until the US. government is undermined itself.
In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed
over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.
"... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
"... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who
should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who
are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist
zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast
their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of
the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS
are
themselves Sunni Muslims.
To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The
leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent
op-ed
:
The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created
Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden
Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander
... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond,
it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis
on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there
is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.
But let that pass.
This narrative,
echoed widely
beyond the
Financial Times
, is Orwellian in
another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as
Jim Lobe
notes
, the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection
is the subject of a May 16
report
from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force
of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions
with invited experts.
Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and
to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different
mission sets and prevail.'
It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's
iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report
is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the
country's foreign policy."
The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony
- or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining
and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter's
interview
with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned,
echoes
of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.
The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based
international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs
a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply
restates
in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the "
American
Century
" and U.S.-led unipolar world order.
What does this have to do with propagating the
meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider
this from the report (italics mine):
The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military,
economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater
Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions
should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.
The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore
balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant
U.S. military drawdown from the region.
On the contrary, the Persian
Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States.
As
such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies
and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should
have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are
not present or immediately available to assist.
We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions
it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of
cultural and militant Wahhabism
has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that
the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast
Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in
order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."
Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked
in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom
receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the
report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this
rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter
Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like
Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."
The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism
as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call
is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential
to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad
regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize."
Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.
This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all
its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni
radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine,
evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus
in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.
This
new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on
the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by
provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security,
and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by
its play in the media.
It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy
hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia
and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional
- sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe
in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not
the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should
this policy be any more successful next time around?
ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its
spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy,
it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a
normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this
rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their
ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.
So what
is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted
by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to
Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran
and fight
Hezbollah
.
Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham,
another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively
provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism
and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel
and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly
notes
, "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations
that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."
Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived
as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming
election? Possibly, yes.
But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense
that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and
evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay
of the past is not tenable.
"... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
"... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
"... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA
facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role
in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of
the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and
his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop
it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere
in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.
Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration
when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in
the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise
hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign
policy.
With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife,
inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his
perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland
to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even
though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in
both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved
when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons
of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess
of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.
Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir
Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in
Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization
membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of
Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.
But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother,
Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute,
Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as
Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife
is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible
exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans.
And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.
Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency
for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on
Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists
to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution
II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.
Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer
and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg
Tyagnibok.
Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed
by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama
the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
Notable quotes:
"... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
"... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
"... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
"... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
"... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan
power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State,
but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).
I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit.
Foreign
Policy :
Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her
hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.
But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton
connection. My bad!
FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of
the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure
foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!
You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart.
Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
Hugoodanode?
It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not
white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on
the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected
Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.
"... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
"... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
"... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
"... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
"... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.
President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that
he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican
opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second
term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military
power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George
W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.
That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness
the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq,
both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when
that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions
whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding,
seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.
Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three
women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations,
Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White
House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently
than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to
do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable
that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.
What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the
United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined
to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under
the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that
actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless
the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding
ISIS.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough
on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing
and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential
ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order,
Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is
more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the
broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global
architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."
Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion
of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset
of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests
otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton
book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service
of a just and liberal order."
Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her
predecessors at State
put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway
actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands
for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.
And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to
explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that
the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting
that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression
that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration
of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because
air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are
a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for
those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.
The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with
midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national
security views within the administration, which brings us to
Victoria Nuland. Nuland,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became
Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed
to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary
Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change
for Ukraine by brazenly supporting
government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations.
It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign
nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and
the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S.
policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder
of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement
of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability
to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with
no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons
to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to
gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and
there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting
it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Russia. In Senate testimony in May
she cited how
the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline?
Last
week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO
is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's
blatant aggression in Ukraine."
In 2009 President Barack Obama received
the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in
Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously
threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the
Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not
a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically
agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.
Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed
from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department.
It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama
has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an
admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military
power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria
Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she
has been doing, which should give everyone pause.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.
The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria
Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after
January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly
admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary
of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views
deserve a closer look.
Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband,
Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century
in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers.
He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from
the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.
Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law,
Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors.
The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing
the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the
military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military
spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement
the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money
to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.
The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation
to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the
Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they
include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic
and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered
potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.
For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an
admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to
accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views
in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace
military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative
driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary
evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration
wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has
added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines,
and Somalia.
And Nuland herself,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed
office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly
relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's
government,
passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was
serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position
in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere
in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for using
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine
that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously
considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was
intercepted and leaked,
possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done
the job.
The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as
a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt
as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed
in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked
"Russian aggression."
Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime
hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED,
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But
Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at
stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.
And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014,
she noted how
the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."
Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the
fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly
to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably,
initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into
a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and
her allies.
Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to
the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures
in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton
dutifully
compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention,
producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American
dominance in the world. The New York Times
revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited
her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked
for.
As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle
several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove
was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield
cost for Putin," Nuland
commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver
to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while
she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House
apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack
of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region
while telling
a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path
of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply
to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in
Cyprus and France discussing
"a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."
But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November.
And wondering where she might be going in January.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails. ..."
"... Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons. ..."
"... And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle Sam can deal with them. ..."
"... I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry spectacle? ..."
"... One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America, the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local Afghan opium-growing stooges. ..."
"... But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force. Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies. ..."
"... So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed to defeat the US military. ..."
"... This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a war none of them understood. ..."
"... No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan. ..."
Anti-Russian hysteria in America reached its apogee this week as Democrats tried to divert
attention from embarrassing revelations about how the Democratic Party apparatus had rigged the primaries
against Bernie Sanders by claiming Vlad Putin and his KGB had hacked and exposed the Dem's emails.
This was rich coming from the US that snoops into everyone's emails and phones across the globe.
Remember German chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone being bugged by the US National Security Agency?
Unnamed US 'intelligence officials' claimed they had 'high confidence' that the Russian KGB
or GRU (military intelligence) had hacked the Dem's emails. These were likely the same officials
who had 'high confidence' that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
Blaming Putin was a master-stroke of deflection. No more talk of Hillary's slush fund foundation
or her status as a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and the rest of Wall Street. All attention was focused
on President Putin who has been outrageously demonized by the US media and politicians.
Except for a small faux pas – a montage of warships shown at the end of the Democratic Convention
is a blaze of jingoistic effusion embarrassingly turned out to be Russian warships!
Probably another trick by the awful Putin who has come to replace Satan in the minds of many Americans.
And what a joy for the war party that those dastardly Ruskis are now back as Enemy Number
One. Much more fun than scruffy Arabs. The word is out: more stealth bombers, more warships, more
missiles, more troops for Europe. The wicked Red Chinese will have to wait their turn until Uncle
Sam can deal with them.
I always find conventions depressing affairs. Rather than the cradle of democracy, they remind
me of clownish Shriners Conventions. Or as the witty Democratic advisor Paul Begala said, `Hollywood
for ugly people.' What, I kept wondering, is the rest of the world thinking as it watching this tawdry
spectacle?
One thing that that amazed me was the Convention's lack of attention to America's longest
ever war that still rages in the mountains of Afghanistan. For the past thirteen years, America,
the world's greatest military and economic power, has been trying to crush the life out of Afghan
Pashtun mountain tribesmen whose primary sin is fiercely opposing occupation by the US and its local
Afghan opium-growing stooges.
The saintly President Barack Obama repeatedly proclaimed the Afghan War over and staged phony
troops withdrawals. He must have believed his generals who kept claiming they had just about defeated
the resistance alliance, known as Taliban.
But the war was far from being 'almost won.' The US-installed puppet regime in Kabul of President
Ashraf Ghani, a former banker, holds on only thanks to the bayonets of US troops and the US Air Force.
Without constant air strikes, the US-installed Ghani regime and its drug-dealing would have been
swept away by Taliban and its tribal allies.
So the US remains stuck in Afghanistan. Obama lacked the courage to pull US troops out. Always
weak in military affairs, Obama bent to demands of the Pentagon and CIA to dig in lest the Red Chinese
or Pakistan take over this strategic nation. The US oil industry was determined to assure trans-Afghan
pipeline routes south from Central Asia. India has its eye on Afghanistan. Muslims could not be allowed
to defeat the US military.
Look what happened to the Soviets after they admitted defeat in Afghanistan and pulled out. Why
expose the US Empire to a similar geopolitical risk?
With al-Qaida down to less than 50 members in Afghanistan, according to former US defense chief
Leon Panetta, what was the ostensible reason for Washington to keep garrisoning Afghanistan? The
shadowy ISIS is now being dredged up as the excuse to stay.
This longest of wars has cost nearly $1 trillion to date – all of its borrowed money – and
caused the deaths of 3,518 US and coalition troops, including 158 Canadians who blundered into a
war none of them understood.
No one has the courage to end this pointless war. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Afghans
are being killed. Too bad no one at the Democratic or Republican Conventions had time to think about
the endless war in forgotten Afghanistan.
Something very strange is happening. The great majority of the mainstream western media are "under-reporting"
the quite monumental events affecting one of the most important NATO allies.
In the same time more and more accusations and more concrete ones are coming out of Turkey about
the West supporting the failed coup! Still western media and capitals behave like it is just normal
for leaders and officials of a NATO country to accuse the United States of supporting a coup in their
country!
It is true that Erdogan is not a popular politician in the West and he is considered rather authoritarian.
He made a lot of things to justify this accusation. But the question is they don't like because he
is authoritarian or because he became too "uncontrollable"?
Anyway there is a distance between criticizing a leader (elected by the way) for his authoritarianism
and supporting military coups against him. To impose a military dictatorship in Turkey is hardly
a way to promote "democracy", as it was hardly the repeated wars in the Middle East (USA and France
have just begun a new one against Libya!)
President Erdogan has again accused the West for its attitude towards his country, just one day
after the visit to Turkey of the chief of the US Armed Forces
DryBack, Voilŕ: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took $100,000
of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded ISIS in
Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate their (Lafarge's)
cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large donators to Clinton's
election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
rberger -> doublreed
Lame. When Clinton worked as a lawyer, she did some legal work for Lafarge. She later said
on the board. This was in 1991. The so-called association with ISIS happened in 2014. Clinton
did not take $100,000 from the company. The company donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation,
which is a non-profit organization and not a cent goes to Clinton.
"... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
"... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
"... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
"... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
"... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
Washington is preparing to
increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't
be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants
more. Much more.
Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations
with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks
are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is
fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to
start paying for their
own defense (although with him,
you never know what his position is from
one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before
President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause:
a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President
– whoever that may be – will lower it.
The Israelis
currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military
assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees
comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first
weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.
So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't
releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The
New York Times is
reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told
Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute
the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee
US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and
immunizing it from any cuts.
Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue:
the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries
must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're
allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been
subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s,
when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular
political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception
to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but,
according to Ha'aretz
:
"The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep
the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the
second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."
If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this
concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources
to get Congress to pressure the White House.
In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke
the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines
the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if
it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?
What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple.
It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the
Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep
Haim Saban happy.
As Glenn Greenwald
points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy
is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure,
their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is
occurring.
What in the heck is going on here?
We made possible the
Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its
dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has
encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use
the "f"-word lightly. I've been
chronicling Israel's slide
toward a
repulsive ethno-nationalism
for years , and today –
with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the
expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders
– my predictions are coming true.
The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off
US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous
insults
, slights, and outright
sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from
You Know Who: it's time to put America first.
What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful
apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's
just what they are.
"... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
"... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
"... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
"... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
"... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
"... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary
Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential
nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline
foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged
bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.
The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame
Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States.
Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee,
then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat,
Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is
no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.
Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were
over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency,
located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and
foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so
positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.
Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would
like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server.
The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought
down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times
reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'"
were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas
professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained
that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never
heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself
on what the Constitution
actually says about
treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States
one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy,
which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.
Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow
is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald
Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be
able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's
favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American
values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers
including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able
to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and
his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.
And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by
other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so
in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even
a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the
fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big
winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is
the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid
for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed,
Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position
it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media
around thirty years ago.
Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv
is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen
times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S.,
never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.
No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly
cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of
Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding
Iran, the GOP foreign policy
platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions
and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the
President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds
endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened
regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire
ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."
The final written
Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up
with the input
of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump
would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support
of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five
different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom
of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism."
It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams
the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic
and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of
a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.
The
Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine
but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform
drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international
law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any
condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters
on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any
way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because
we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.
The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who
has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly
agreed to an anti-BDS
pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer.
Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman
to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.
But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat
different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian
rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a
sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has
always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this
kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values."
Bill meanwhile was
seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander
and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing
Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.
Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there
are separate reports suggesting that one of her
first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad
regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from
the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.
The Democratic platform also
beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on
draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates
the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran
"has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither
assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the
multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments
by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian
bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.
So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign
policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as
liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from
left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its
inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that
tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things
to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend.
And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues
like the United Nations.
If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless
task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement
of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political
class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely
to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the
Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that
the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.
Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
Notable quotes:
"... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
"... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
"... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
"... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
"... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
"... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
"... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
"... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
"... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
"... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
"... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
"... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
"... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
"... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
"... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
"... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
"... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
"... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
"... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
"... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
"... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
"... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
"... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
"... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
"... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
"... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
"... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
"... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
"... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
"... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
"... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive
of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that
is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise
around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a
partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either
knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight
balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism
is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage.
Shame.
macmarco
Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact
with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to
communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.
US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost
certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge
and intertwine.
Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending
on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see
the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist
China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship
at all costs.
notindoctrinated
Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure
he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic
presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:
Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast,
the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.
Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's
finger will never be far from the nuke-button.
2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.
3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also,
she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p
Sam3456
I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're
a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."
Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq
War.
Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?
JohnManyjars
Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country
first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.
R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars
Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.
Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars
Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They,
unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.
John Smith
Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006
and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board
Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President
of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the
G. W. Bush presidency
Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter
Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and
a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,
And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in
a tax haven!
The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition
that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links
to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle:
"... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce
corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.
This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin..
the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of
speculation and some educated guesswork.''
And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!
he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't
find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find
the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!
MtnClimber -> John Smith
They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a
billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.
You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do
you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?
Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to
see from them?
John Smith -> MtnClimber
there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still
alive n well..
the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee
and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have
fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!
annberk
It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle.
Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose
the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next
year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower.
I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being
bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean
by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)
Sam3456
I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another
cold war.
delphicvi
What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.
Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for
a Trump Tower near Red Square."
Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn
and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious
newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright
amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia.
And Russia is not Ukraine.
Sam3456
The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind
the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that
an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.
"We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when
asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.
John Smith -> Sam3456
Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything
on Russia..
clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??
''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts
during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton,
according to a newly released Inspector General report.
I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth
of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count
for something!
So again...
what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a
team to stop it?
Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans
as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version
of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of
retirement for this??
Having failed this gun running operation...
They then went to Plan B..
''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads
from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html
But When they arrived in Jordan..
''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended
for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold
to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean
can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?
Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office.
This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial
complex backers.
Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.
Oldiebutgoodie
With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our
countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect
Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
- Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.
Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election.
I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.
spraydrift
'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'
The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't
hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so
easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within
an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?
Greg Popa -> spraydrift
Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view;
the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative
reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda,
such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation
is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider
even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf
calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]
The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to
be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade
Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed
12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]
mandzorp
This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither
can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind
on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either
needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except
for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.
errovi
"The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank
Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy,
a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of
the US Ukraine Business Council."
So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both
the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council
is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you
think we are?
Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi
Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and
funding.
Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from
the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on
The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.
What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats
seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits
and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.
John Smith -> MentalToo
drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
$5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
Did they build schools No
Did they build hospitals No!
They just destabilised the country...
So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5
Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!
jezzam -> John Smith
The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy
in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption,
none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated
in Russia since Putin came to power.
Brian Burman -> jezzam
Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the
elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current
government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that
Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime
Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev
reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi
militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".
Виктор Захаров
I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian
Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's
clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....
Henrychan
Hello all Hillary supporters,
You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'.
I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive
tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe
most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make
you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.
I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected
I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can
anyone vote for this vile human being?
You must be either:
Ignorant
Misinformed
Lack common sense or
Mentally ill
Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control
YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?
Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.
Oilyheart
Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the
Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley?
Bill visits a lot of places.
Виктор Захаров
First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those
who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued
to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov
hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen
Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....
Oilyheart
Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb.
Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented
by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the
stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty.
Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to
de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over
the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos
because it's cool?
GODsaysBRESCAPE
Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing
her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters,
that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.
Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE
Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE
BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!
HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.
GODsaysBRESCAPE
The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"
dikcheney
I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
I cant hack her lies
I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
I cant hack her unbelievability
I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
I cant hack her transparent deceptions
I cant hack her associates
I cant hack her war criminal mentors
I cant hack her media admirers and shills
I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
I cant hack her mate Obama
Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?
Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney
You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or
in African dictatorships.
nnedjo
Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are
angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its
ugly face.:-)))
Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo
Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.
Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher
I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since
she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go
unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from
an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under
oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.
nnedjo
The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing
to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign
governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise,
they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that
they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.
gondwanaboy -> nnedjo
So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.
They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption
scandal that actually has proof
miri84
Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping:
doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump
The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations
fairly and with integrity.
guest88888
Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time
Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.
McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has
finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in
cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'
All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed
about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue,
that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if
not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.
selvak
I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty
of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush
and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich
in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.
sejong -> selvak
Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.
PCollens
100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the
rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries
- all panicking more and more now, out of control.
Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.
Alec Dacyczyn
It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of
Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily
(2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness
to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather
than be left defenseless.
I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather
not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result
in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would
indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb
someone than negotiate a deal).
Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn
I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from
Ivan the Terrible...
NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down
a Russian fighter.
That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of
a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?
Sam3456
A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War
was a vote for Saddam Hussein.
niftydude
Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is
just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.
livingstonfc
Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who
is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.
BSchwartz
Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked
for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp
with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called
on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.
A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand
that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy
regarding Obama.
But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer
to the Russians than to much of America.
Sam3456 -> BSchwartz
Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you
history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.
Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz
Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is
communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?
PCollens -> BSchwartz
A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich
guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR
commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!
Gem59
The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be
the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview
with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians
Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women
too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing
to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those
Cold War years. Still...creepy!
Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has
been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished
everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.
Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts
to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being
manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?
Ping2fyoutoo
"experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."
That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium.
With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal
American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"
It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people
about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as
practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.
The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all
of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other
than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height
of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double
shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.
The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum
which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.
And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.
Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo
On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media
is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries
political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple
or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m
on the poverty line in their own country.
PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo
Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.
normankirk
So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests
are worldwide.
And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he
is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack
of the DNC.
Suga
Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took
place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!
(Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it
will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they
are surrounded by Pure Evil!
Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.
Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues,
yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including
the Graun, sadly:
Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences
– an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs
The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts
to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA
Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing
us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage
and honesty.
Eddie2000
Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this
nonsense?
woof92105
****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their
bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc.
These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0
sejong -> woof92105
Accuracy score 1/10.
normankirk -> woof92105
and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry
in the US and UK?
Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105
Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where
the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....
shaftedpig
Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category
as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump,
so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the
face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.
This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative
journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least
consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere
corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters
like HRC.
Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor
of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support
and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is
no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on
the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald
had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.
So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!
Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and
even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is
because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians.
And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist,
we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and
illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will
further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.
Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!
BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly
what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?
ahmedfez
A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking
the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.
shaftedpig -> ahmedfez
True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would
be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.
"... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
"... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
"... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
"... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
"... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
"... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
"... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
"... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
"... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
"... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
"... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
"... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
"... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
"... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
"... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
"... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
"... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the
Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state.
This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.
Um, given reports that the Turks
briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend,
Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested.
Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which
is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement
too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend
not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.
Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big
setback for the US and a big gain for Russia
Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.
The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts"
get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous.
These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is
the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.
They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point
that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive
and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets
its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big
wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia
is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's
the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs
or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!!!!"
I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet
Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to
invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West.
First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of
Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.
US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military
bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order
to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be
the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria
(by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable
reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.
The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether
Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system
than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping
the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development,
they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt
to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make
the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more
retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.
If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs
to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists,
strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into
an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold
War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay
in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:
There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make
common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all
its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be
of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the
Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined
would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate
the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war
as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance
of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give
us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic
world.
Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity
with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.
The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if
one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure
through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military
economy in 15 years.
Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US,
and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.
And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had
the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback
that is still ongoing once Putin took over.
Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I
was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she
predicted this coup 18 months ago.
The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the
coup, which Helmers also mentions,
are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always
trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to
NATO.
For background on Edmonds see "
Kill the Messenger ",
a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.
Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and
the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or
green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.
While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case
officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with
the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including
the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen
has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged
the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.
But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen,
as Edmonds says.
Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper
echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or
his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of
support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is
out of view. (USA? Off-world?)
Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported
this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked
Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's
pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became
disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention
of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a
certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites
were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign
governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile
activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of
our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing
to speak out about it.
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about
Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to
replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both
the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial,
cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded
within the USA and Congress.
A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears
I'm posting this short comment.
For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her
whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.
How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to
try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?
Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States
or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states
and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect
it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability
could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this
game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians
decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies
using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?
This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.
For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly
on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military
and political affairs.
I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to
a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author
of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the
Balkans) except that he's Greek.
In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the
"coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or
hierarchy:
-Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
-Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the
late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part
(historically, and now);
-Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or
possibly, S500s, in Syria;
-The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
-Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the
Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
-By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
-It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending
coup and informed Erdogan of it;
-The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right
geographic location to serve this purpose.
The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original
post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.
Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the
9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course
Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated
relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople
to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding
Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship
between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period
(i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").
Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.
The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently
had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out
why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively
or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks
pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters
are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but
hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical
hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all
a happy one.
"... 0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was a minor one (DR-CAFTA?). ..."
"... I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New Guy will be even worse than 0bama ..."
"... Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary! ..."
"... Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait! ..."
BTW, do you think we "dodge 2 bullets" & make it to Jan 2017 without 0bama being able to implement
his beloved TPP & Grand Ripoff?
Flying Spaghetti Monster Willing, I hope so!
0bama v Bush43, who was the More Effective Evil? At least Bush43 didn't have the passion for
Crapifying social insurance like 0bama did – IIRC Bush43 meekly tried to privatize SS & then let
it go. Bush43 didn't push any Rigged Trade Outsourcing deals the size of TPP, perhaps there was
a minor one (DR-CAFTA?).
0bama's passion is allowing the 1%ers enrichment by parasitically ripping off 99%ers. In contrast
Bush43's passion was neocon Middle East warmongering regime-change, & Christian Theocratic stances
like banning stem cell research & gay marriage, & fellow theocrat SCOTUS nominations.
I'd guesstimate 0bama is even worse than Bush43. The sad thing is that I fear the Fockin New
Guy will be even worse than 0bama.
Perhaps there is a small chance for HClinton to be less bad
than 0bama if the Sanders-ish social democrats (typically labeled Progressives) can force HClinton
to halfway stick to the 2016 platform. Based on HClinton's behavior during the campaign, I doubt
that is possible – she seems to detest the Progressive faction, based off the Kaine nomination
& authoritarian banning of Sanders delegates from the convention floor, etc, & so far HClinton
seems to get away with this "hippie punching" behavior.
One positive aspect is that I feel like that HClinton will be unable to use the 0bama excuses
to valid Progressives' policy critiques of
You are a sexist for critizing Dear Leader! (racist in 0bama's case)
Those Evil Rs won't let her do that policy
These bogus replies are "dead horses" after continual use by 0bamabots, that IMHO will not
be available for HClinton to use.
Well, Bush43 has Iraq going for him. And IMNSHO, the only reason Obama didn't seriously
put "boots on the ground" is that Iraq and Afghanistan broke the army. But I bet they're
recovered enough now, and ready for Hillary!
Clearly, from Hickenlooper's speech before Clinton, the brass can't wait!
"... How can anyone vote for that corrupt warmonger? Seriously, can someone explain why she has 50% of the votes in the USA. Unbelievable. ..."
"... Killary, like Barry, loves killing people. Psychopaths--both of them. ..."
"... I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. ..."
"... Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck? ..."
Funny the Dems are so hot for Hillary and don't recognize she's a regime-changing warmonger on
a par with Bush, responsible for millions of dead and displaced in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Exactly how nuts do you have to be to think you can go to war with Russia? Even if you come out
on top, what's the environment going to be like? Is emerging from your bunker with 70% of the
population dead and no atmosphere left considered a win? FUCK HILLARY RAW.
I honestly don't care if Trump wins. I don't think it will be good, but whatever. But I know
for a fact that no matter what, Hillary must not win. She's bad news.
WE ARE WITNESSING THE MOST CORRUPT, MAFIA-LIKE.. ANTI AMERICAN WOMAN IN HISTORY OF POLITICS. THERE
ARE REASONS WHY SCANDALS AND LIES AND DEATHS HAVE FOLLOWED HER FOR YEARS.
Truth Archives
Oy Vey! It's funny how Liberals, most Muslims etc are offended by Trump but not offended
by the direct policies of the same old warmongers resulting in the deaths of millions of people
in the Middle East for a decade and on going in the sham war on t3rror. The fuck?
2eyesofhorus
Hillary has become in effect, a NeoConservative, not a Democrat-she votes for war continually
Aisha K
Actually a lot of Muslims don't support Hillary or Trump and prefer Bernie because Bernie really
did vote against the war in Iraq, while Trump only claims he was once against it. Regardless of
that fact, Trump makes a powerful argument against voting for Hillary because of her warmonger
record in Iraq, Libya and any other place she gets involved in, and the damage it has caused the
entire world, including USA.
This Trump ad gives us a taste of what the Democrats will be up against if we have to try to mobilize
the voters behind Hillary to stop him. And why so many of us won't be able to put our hearts into
it. Because on this issue he is absolutely right. Hillary's record on foreign policy is reprehensible
- and terrifying. But it's not just on this issue - she has been lying about many things, among
them the state of the economy. With no public voting record to defend, no fundamental commitment
to the truth or reality, with a prostitute press that selectively forgets what he said yesterday,
Trump can be selectively right - and righteous - on any issue he chooses. Until it no longer suits
him.
Do I think Trump would be better than Clinton on issues of war and peace? Not for a minute.
Would he be worse? Maybe - I'm honestly not sure...
Garou
Take it from me .. She's a monster.
gamira007
+PeaceAndJustice Yes absolutely she is propped up by the MSM and the Corporate death machine.
The Majority do know this woman is pure evil but our rulers hand pick who is prez here cause if
voting did really matter then it would be illegal.
PeaceAndJustice
+Philo Beddoe
Her 'support' is driven by the MSM which is completely controlled by the PRC (Predatory Ruling
Class). Basically the people that believe the television think she is just a swell lady.
"... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
"... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
"... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
"... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
"... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
"... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
"... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military
force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by
neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes
a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats
appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing
as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who
has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling
her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against
the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which
she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.
However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be
his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept
on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command,
such as Gen. David Petraeus.
This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful
bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise
favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond
get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.
Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates
reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007
for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most
neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.
Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much
of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the
leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton
sank that deal and escalated
tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
a Clinton favorite.
Pumping for War in Libya
In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime
change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect
civilians."
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building
strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering
civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his
troops so they could rape more women.
Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception
about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her
"no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies
unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of
Gaddafi.
Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what
they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush
to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama
grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.
But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels
captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's
demise, Clinton went into a network interview and
declared , "we came,
we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.
Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists
gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate
in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned
out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.
Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in
lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent
"regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty,
a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.
Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who
were deemed "moderate" but in reality
collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian
franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).
Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a
"safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion
of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation
of conditions for another "regime change."
In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside
his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led
invasion to Clinton's disappointment.
Parting Ways
Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say
voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations
with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace
settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically
risky work that Clinton was not.
Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least
seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish
members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power.
By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.
A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus,
Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media
immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red
line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely
assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence
and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists
to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.
At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his
intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then
accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing
to deny a role in the sarin attack.
Eventually, the sarin
case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and
it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory.
But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits
denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."
There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a
much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used
propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same
in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the
Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.
Still Lusting for War
Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy –
Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do
still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that
would require seizing territory inside Syria.
But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop
at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal
would be filling up the whole tent.
Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two
countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.
For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu
favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?
In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian
government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and
to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to
leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?
Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she
take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir
Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime
change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?
Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears
of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping
defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians
to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.
Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for
human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility
to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement,
reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is
among the most cynical in this regard.
Trading Places
But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical
reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive
war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal
interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful
point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.
While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to
make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies
putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats,
whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.
At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced,
sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain
the nation's militaristic impulses.
In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag
and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively
low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.
By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to
be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity
for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against
Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission
over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.
But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for
the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for
George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure
she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians
in Gaza.
Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually
every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they
cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with
an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support
for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.
But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and
once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries)
she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense
of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.
The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's
hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply
spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has
reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed
Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we
think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters
are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Yes,
Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]
So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968
days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy –
and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive
war party.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and
leaves out all the speculation"
Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above
that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not
trust them).
Notable quotes:
"... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
"... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
"... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
"... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
"... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
"... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
"... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
"... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
"... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton
campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the
two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to,
if she becomes president.
The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian
relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing
the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year,
Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.
And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric
on Russia. After Trump
suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should
release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump
in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.
"This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national
security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.
Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission
to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia
released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election.
In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed
that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.
Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was
too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated
to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.
At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security
surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize
and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering
with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.
"The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia,
in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a
central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by
the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing
into the hands of Russian strategy."
Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White
House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's
argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.
"This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has
already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad
and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the
United States."
In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression
and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.
In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe."
Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National
Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky
IV."
This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic
candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she
stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove
an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.
Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that
means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information
warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks?
Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen
U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?
The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia
to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will
be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats
will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.
NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT
So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because
they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while
in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in
and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She
had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she
did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get
hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security
on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.
NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT
People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN
TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people
around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming
want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists
nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more
stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the
USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland
Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy
has been lost to corruption!!!!
George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT
I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia
and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been
antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the
first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe
there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot
see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the
United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.
It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of
intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just
can't help themselves.
chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT
The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships
the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.
Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking
charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.
Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States
or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.
You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship
with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.
But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad
one major party is going to recognize that now.
invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT
"This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national
security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.
In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?
I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news
coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump
is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want
people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention).
He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing
will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is
true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.
NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT
Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd
classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security.
She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was
not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers
to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then
there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those
laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary
decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When
Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal
laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for
violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing
so why file a criminal charge.
Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to
them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from
Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.
OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT
The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed
affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative.
Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying
Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know---
the Clinton/Obama "reset".
stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT
Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't
know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's
stupid reset button was all about?
NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]
I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and
the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously
in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades
Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.
All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him
so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks
that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons
and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since
before the conflict broke out. What was the point?
Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized,
destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian
your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected
from those educated Hilary Voters...
Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT
Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof.
Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.
"... Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence: ..."
"... [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. ..."
"... Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households. ..."
By so many measures [but not the kitchen table charts above] , our country is stronger and
more prosperous than it was when we started. And through every victory and every setback, I've
insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn't meet all of our challenges
in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.
So, tonight, I'm here to tell you that, yes, we [who?] 've still got more work
to do. More work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave
or a decent retirement; for every child who needs a sturdier ladder out of poverty or a world-class
education [credentiaism]; for everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and
a half years. We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer
- (applause) - our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful and sustainable for the next
generation. (Applause.) We're not done perfecting our union, or living up to our founding creed
that all of us are created equal; all of us are free in the eyes of God. (Applause.)
(I'm sorry, that's the best I can come up with.) Turning incrementalism into triumphalism
is a neat rhetorical trick, and only
a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your
attention to one sentence:
[OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past
seven and a half years.
Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone
who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric
of concrete material benefits given to working class households.
So where Sanders exposes the power imbalance between labor and capital - might even be said to
enact it in the intellectual and rhetorical concessions in part two of his speech - Obama
carefully erases it. He does so by pushing out the horizon for hopes to be realized ("not yet felt,"
not "even in one lifetime",) and minimizing our expectations for change. Look at his adjectives:
"more work," "sturdier ladder," "safer," "fairer," "more secure," "more peaceful." It's like the
soft inverted totalitarianism of low expectations.
This after a candidate explicitly calling for (dread word) socialism - which, for those who came
in late, is all about the power imbalance between labor and capital - took 45% of the Democrat vote
in
a grotesquely rigged primary --
"... Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her. ..."
"... Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout. ..."
Bizarre post. Obama bailed out the banks? Most of the bank bailout money from TARP was spent
under the Bush administration after TARP was enacted in October 2008, before Obama took office,
and the bulk of the remaining money spent under TARP after Obama took office was for the auto
industry rescue. I'm no Hillary fan, but get your facts straight even if they don't fit your narrative.
I used to love Naked Capitalism, but it has gone off the rails recently with its authors' bizarre
assertions - Krugman a necon, Kaine a Blue Dog Democrat, Hillary soliciting donations from the
Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the one hand (both big fans of hers, I hear),
and George Soros on the other - and conspiracy theories (Diebold in league with the DNC to fix
elections - evidence, please). And let me know when the remake of the "Siberian Candidate" (sic)
is released to theaters so I can catch it before your seemingly preferred candidate Trump - that
pacifist who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing and won't rule out the use of tactical
nuclear weapons against ISIS, and that man of the working class who proposes yuuuge! tax cuts
for the top 1/10th of 1% - bans such subversive material
You suffer from a reading comprehension problem, so you should read another site.
Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential
for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy
Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009,
even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization
of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner
fought her.
Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks
out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we
described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times
op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free
card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications
for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures.
The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance
sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout.
As for your other arguments, you seem to have a fondness for fabrication. We've never posted
on the Kochs and the Clintons, but a highly respected political reporter, Lee Fang of the Intercept,
has on
how the Clinton campaign has deep ties to Koch lobbyists , so you seem unable to remember
where you read things. We've repeatedly called Krugman a neo liberal because
he is one. While technically Kaine cannot be a Blue Dog, because as a Senator while the Blue Dogs
are a House coalition. But Hudson finessed that by calling him a Senate Blue Dog. If you Google
the term, it is used both specifically to refer to the House coalition, but also generically to
describe conservative Southern Democrats.
And while Clinton boosters like The Nation and FiveThirtyEight in recent days have tried denying
that Kaine is a Blue Dog, more detached media outlets like the UK's Sun have used that precise
term to describe his politics. Now that the anti-regulation, pro-business Blue Dogs in the House
have been largely turfed out, they appear to have been redefined as being further right than they
were to Kaine's benefit. They were "pragmatic" and pro-corporate, which hews to Kaine's pro free
trade, pro bank deregulation stance. And did you miss that he is also anti abortion?.
Nor have we said anything re Diebold being in cahoots with the Dems. As for Trump's tax cuts,
with Federal spending at 18% of GDP, he can't cut taxes much, as he's finding out. You seem to
have missed that
he's had to go back to the drawing board on his plan , and is already messaging that the cuts
for the rich would be way lower than he originally contemplated. If he wants to lower taxes for
the rich, he's going to have to raise taxes elsewhere, and he'll rapidly find out that all those
"somewheres" have lots of lobbyists protecting them.
We don't have a position on Trump but we have pointed out at length the way the media is not
merely cheerleading for Hillary but distorting things Trump said and/or taking them badly out
of context, the latest being his joke about Russia turning over Hillary's e-mails. If you look
at what Trump actually said, he said no one knew who did the hack (and computer forensic experts
confirm that is true) and then said if Russia were behind the hack, it would be bad, and next
said something like, "Hey, China, Russia, or whoever in your bed, if you have Hillary's missing
e-mails, it would be great if you turned them over. I'm sure you would be rewarded handsomely
by our media."
More broadly, what seems to offend you is that we and our readers, to borrow Glen Ford's expression,
are willing to consider that Trump may well be the less effective evil. We think both are dreadful
candidates, but Trump, who would be even more of an outsider than Jimmy Carter, is more likely
to get little done. And let us not forget that Carter had Democrats in charge of the House and
Senate, and was not despised by his own party, as Trump is.
You seem to be attributing many remarks made in comments to the Lambert and me. Readers argue
a lot of positions we don't agree with, like pro gunz and the Tory PR that the EU will roll over
in Brexit talks to preserve their exports to the UK. I gather you'd rather have us censor comments
so they reflect only your views.
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
rather short and simple one.
Q; Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's
"no travel" list in 1981.
• (((Scott))) @bamasevere 11 h
Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship?
#NeverHillary #LockHerllp
4ч 28 V 35 •••
European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical
resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of
indigenous populations. European nations broke their promise to protect and
promote the welfare of the indigenous African people. Instead the Belgians
dehumanized and debased African societies producing the social determinants
of death that gave rise to deadly infectious diseases.
Disclaimer: I grew up in a UK colony.
In the passage above I intensely dislike the transition from the general
'European colonization" to specific "Belgian." The Congo was a Belgian disaster
from start to finish.
I
highly
recommend Hochschild's book,
King Leopold's
Ghost
, mentioned in fn 4 of the article. It's a detailed description of
the horrific circumstances in the Congo under the Belgians. Most of the
papers and other sources were burned or kept hidden until Hochschild's
inquiry and book. That's why you didn't learn about it in history class.
[Well, that and a few other reasons.]
My favorite* part of Imperial Reckoning is that after it came
out there were a bunch of other historians who criticized it and
claimed Elkins numbers for the amount of people detained and killed
were inflated and completely implausible.
Well, excuse me, but she makes it very clear that the British
records regarding the final period of the colonization of Kenya
were conspicuously absent, both in Kenya and in the home archives
back in Britain. As in there were giant empty sections on the
shelves, completely out of character for the normally anally
retentive British record keeping. The only possible explanation
being that a vast number of documents were destroyed to hide what
they contained. Even so, she managed to find enough surviving
documentation to piece together a very dismal picture. And she was
the only person who ever bothered to go archive mining in regards
to Kenya (in addition to a lot of time spent traveling around Kenya
interviewing people who witnessed events first hand).
For the sake of argument, maybe her numbers are inflated. But
there is literally no other historian who has done the kind of work
on the subject that Elkins did, so how the hell would they have any
idea if her numbers were right or wrong?
*actually second favorite, since my number one favorite is the
blurb from self-hating Scotsman and British Empire apologist Niall
Ferguson on the back of the book to the effect that it provides a
sobering account of the 'excesses' of Empire, as if Empire could
ever be anything but an inherent excess.
My comment was specific to the Belgian excesses in the Congo.
Your comment is a misunderstanding of the subject of my comment.
As to the horrors of British Imperialism, I am aware they exist
(for example: Black Hole response), and did not comment. I would
also point out the the British Imperialism would have to be viewed
under the contemporaneous activities of the world. I recommend
reviewing Madam Tinabu's efforts in Nigeria, or Shaka's and
Dingan's efforts in South Africa, and most recently, Mugabe's
efforts in Matabeleland.
In modern times: Stalin's efforts in the USSR. Or WW I, or WW
II, or the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, its Monroe
doctrine in South America, or the Saudis' in Yemen, are much worse
than British Imperialism.
And yes, that is my biased opinion. The British never promise to
respect democracy, and then continually undermine the will of the
people with military coup after military coup, or sanctions for
ever, followed by Dictator after Dictator.
The US, and many of its people, appear to have a predilection
for Sanctimony coupled with Hypocrisy.
You sure love to engage in slavery apologism. You refer to
Tinabu constantly. She and Shaka/Dingane had been dead for
decades before the British colony in Kenya was even established.
Maybe not in in history class, but Conrad's Heart of Darkness is a
pretty ubiquitous piece of culture. Apocalypse Now is probably more
famous and strips the story of its African setting, but the core
attributes still remain. Especially the implicit moral that any
'civilization' that engages in mass butchery and exploitation of
natives is nowhere near as civilized as it fancies itself. And the
natives are never as 'primitive' as the colonial overlords think they
are.
It is good that detailed information is coming out about the Belgian
Congo.
But I don't see how the whole subject can be considered a surprise.
In his story "The Heart of Darkness"–which is usually taken to have
something to do with African savagery–Joseph Conrad plainly describes how
the Belgians did not feed their slave labor because it was cheaper to get
new slaves than to feed the slaves they had. Typically, when the slaves
weakened, they were thrown in pits to die and new slaves were acquired.
The "Congo Free State" wasn't Belgian, it was a private colony of King
Leopold II. It was officially established at the
Berlin Conference
, which involved all the powers of Europe, and part of
the deal for the other European countries was that there would be "free
trade" without any favour shown to Belgian traders (though this turned out
to be a lie). One of the major exploiters of the "products of the forest"
was the
Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company
, which, as the name indicates, had
British and Belgian owners. So in many ways the "humanitarian mission" in
the Congo was a European, rather than just Belgian, project.
The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election.
Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish
good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in
the Crimea.
Noise and hysteria
Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes,
was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida,
Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email
server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she
used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump
of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that
the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence
services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.
Trump's statement that he is ready to
discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This
view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that
Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language
with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia
to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.
The establishment's tantrum
Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence,
made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat
hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."
It is Putin
personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top
employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of
the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump
supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters.
And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.
The pro-American candidate
The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations
with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald
Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this
election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American
politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the
US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage.
Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he
would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.
Another thing is that his understanding of US
national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus.
For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national
power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of
optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction
with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries
into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion
of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".
"... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
"... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
"... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
"... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
"... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
"... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
"... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
"... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
"... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
"... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
"... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
"... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
"... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
"... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
"... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
"... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
"... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
"... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
"... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy
of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten
the United States?
Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to
Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted
the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this
annexation threaten the United States?
Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that
threaten the United States?
Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is
it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians
made threatening statements about the NATO states?
Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and
where was that?
Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on
shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked)
as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the
capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.
The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world
class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.
We should all sober up. pl
Valissa
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate,
so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order
to mobilize us."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh
Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including
NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.
Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for
the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.
Grizziz -> Ghostship...
I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits
hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy
to get updated.
rkka said in reply to Grizziz...
Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries
of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then
became the most powerful land power in the world.
Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.
And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the
U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil
War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.
Tel said in reply to Valissa...
Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame
for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."
Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing
is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.
I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking
to it. You have never had it so good.
Dave Schuler
Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.
SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...
Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores
of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit
of happiness".
I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this:
you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what
you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most
likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.
NotTimothyGeithner said...
Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing
with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S.
financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a
diplomatic revolt.
The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and
hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense
profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance,
defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to
keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives
would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.
Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten
that perceived slight.
SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...
Moscow is large enough to be
A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however,
have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the
country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade
relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.
Cee:
Col. Lang,
I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp
are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do
all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder.
I'm quite serious.
"I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened
on this watch, see the case of MH-17.
Erik
The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating
Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea.
The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western
aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's
naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always
vulnerable Kaliningrad).
All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.
Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think
in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said
at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.
We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia
with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources
than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least
the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would
they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?
Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over
Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass
of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty
was his real offense.
What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has.
2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the
drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really
are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.
James said...
If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about
Putin ...
Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years
that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist
and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price
of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of
Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.
I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch
the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)
I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In
Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them
suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything
is possible.
Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse
corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was
possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity
and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many
Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.
(I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)
kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...
The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became
financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia
was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly
dismiss hard won economic security.
rkka -> Ulenspiegel...
While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the
rate of nearly a million/year.
Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover.
The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006.
By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could
fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation
exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.
In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western
politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve.
In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by
500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming
that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"
Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.
Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians
who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.
SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...
Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas
and academics to something more sustainable.
It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create
new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news
from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed
the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are
beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of
the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a
top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space
launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I
will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global
IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal
difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities
too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a
lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling
and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant
year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of
former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never
appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you
may fill in the blanks.
SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...
In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even
exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown
or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food
stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent
and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What
are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky
supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...
SmoothieX12,
This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items
being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in
Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism
for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.
If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will
allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food
services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance
wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America
could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to
increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it
might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition
of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow
for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions
of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again.
And some of them might go back.
IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy.
Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing
success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization
of farm-country Mexico.
SmoothieX12 -> different clue...
Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of
overall wealth withIN its own borders
Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and,
I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless
but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let
me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable
for years now.
kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...
That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%.
Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete
basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance
of normalcy.
Daniel Nicolas
In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.
Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related
interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and
preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend
itself (and their interests).
Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration
would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war,
they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future
USA being even more hostile.
The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.
EricB
Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down
on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts.
It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at
its peak during the late 90's:
The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with
the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate
trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks
by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the
return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.
Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it
has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against
their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of
Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees
and austerity.
Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...
Bill,
I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured
destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions
and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via
things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire
Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately
caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as
mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry
was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available
in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit).
They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.
The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which
was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine
under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic
to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power
are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control
of Crimea.
Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have
hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening
simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has
to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression
has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre
as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing
that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe
is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently
have any actual purpose.
If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against
any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US
hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this
can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary.
Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally,
I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.
Peter Reichard said...
Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were
like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries
created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We
ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire
and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with
the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable
multi-polar world.
SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...
That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold
War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In
Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote
several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand
in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."
kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...
In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply
suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly
fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and
Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine
SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How
did that happen?
rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...
"How did that happen?"
In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards
the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.
"... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
"... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
"... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
"... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked
and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.
The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting
computers on November 9.
I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance
exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.
Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats
win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows
how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their
political party allegiance.
When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama
koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.
Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about
how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.
Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases
his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank
Luntz of the left.
The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years
means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.
Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to
admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.
As my colleague Glenn Greenwald
told
WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee
was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract
the trove of embarrassing emails
published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.
"Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted.
"Certainly the U.S. government has
a very long and
successful history of doing exactly that."
Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about
weapons of mass destruction - and
the long history
of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence
is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part
of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.
The theory
gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has
seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said
something sort of nice about him (though
not, as Trump falsely
claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down
a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate
told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that
requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.
Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or
not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate
cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008,
the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin
ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine,
called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday,
Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News
reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine
in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect
that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service
security team read.)
Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was
behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this,"
he said.
Later on Monday, Trump himself then
attributed
the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked
the hell out of us."
Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous
it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions,
there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.
One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S.
government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security
Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum
in Russia.
"If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it,"
Snowden wrote
on Twitter on Monday, with a link to
a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case,
he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the
hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the
DNC's network, which officials
told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)
What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source
of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence
public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future
attacks.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy.
I did this personally against Chinese ops.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA,
but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection,
but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.
Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
@Snowden
Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility,
such hacks will become common.
The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics
Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the
population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500
people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .
That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million
people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians"
will remain.
Ukraine has managed to get rid of its gas dependence
on Russia, thus destroying the "energy weapon" of the Kremlin, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt has said.
The Ukrainian authorities over the past few years have in fact destroyed Moscow's energy weapon,
which used gas in this way, Pyatt said during a meeting of the discussion club "Open World" on
the transformations in Ukraine, progress and tasks for the future in Kyiv on Tuesday.
The diplomat said that Ukraine's national gas company Naftogaz Ukrainy currently purchases
gas only if it finds the price acceptable, but the natural gas has ceased to be the instrument
of manipulation. Ukrainians are no longer in the situation when the Kremlin uses energy resources
as a weapon, as an instrument of manipulating Ukrainian politicians, so that they should take
certain decisions, he said.
Pyatt also said that the Ukrainian energy sector is undergoing serious transformations and
this is very important to bring these changes to completion.
What? Buying the cheapest gas on the market is more economical than not paying for it at all,
which is what they did as regards gas directly supplied by Russia?
And where does this cheaper alternative supply come from - originally, not through an intermediary?
Украина не должна возвращать России $3 млрд, которые были получены во времена Виктора
Януковича. Об этом в программе "О политике" с Сергеем Руденко в эфире Еспресо [sic].TV
заявил министр финансов Александр Данилюк. "Это был политический кредит, который нас
заставили взять",- пояснил министр.
По словам господина Данилюка, эти средства в то время могли пойти на различные
выплаты в государстве. "Наша позиция заключается в том, что мы не должны возвращать эти
деньги",- сказал Александр Данилюк.
In the Ukraine they see no reason for paying back their $3 billion debt to Russia
The Ukraine is not obliged to return to Russia the $3 billion debt that was
accrued during Victor Yanukovych's
presidency.This
is what Finance Minister Alexander Danyluk said live on air to Sergei Rudenko during the
Espresso TV programme "On Politics". "Our position was that we were politically forced
to accept this credit. Therefore, our position is that we do not have to return this
money", explained the minister.
According to Mr. Danyluk, at the time they were able to use the money for the
payment of various state benefits. "Our position is that we should not return the
money", said Alexander Danyluk.
On December 16 last year, the IMF Executive Board recognized the official status of
the $3 billion Russian loan to the Ukraine. In response, the Ukraine announced a
moratorium on the payment of any debts to the Russian Federation.
Which is good business practice, according to Pyatt Twat, I presume.
They evidently believe Daddy Pyatt's muck that they are getting off the Gazprom tit
just because they are buying Gazprom gas from someone else. I would have a quiet word
with those people to warn them of the possibility that they might have to suddenly
find 45% to 90% of their gas supplies somewhere else if they did not put pressure on
Ukraine to pay its debts. Because it has evidently not occurred to Ukraine where they
would get their gas if their brotherly suppliers did not have any to sell, and were
scrambling to find enough for themselves. America would crow that Russia was using
energy as a weapon, of course, but Russia should be past caring what America thinks
or says because they are never going to be anything like friends no matter what
Russia says or does.
Meanwhile, Daddy Pyatt is going to have some 'splainin' to do
when Gazprom refuses to sell Ukraine any more gas until they pay. Because they're
still getting more than 10% directly. Russia is being nice, and usually sells them
gas as soon as they pay in advance for that amount. But maybe they should say, "You
know what? I think you should pay all your past dues before you get any more". And
they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, because it doesn't matter what 'their position'
is; the debt has been recognized as legal and binding.
He would take any criticism from Russia as an accolade, an indicator that he is
doing something right, because getting up Russia's nose is his stock in trade and
the reason he's posted in there. He's there to provoke confrontation between
Russia and Ukraine, the more the better, and he could not care less what will
happen to Ukrainians after he's gone.
As usual, Pyatt is trumpeting nonsense, although I would love for some intrepid journalist
to ask him why the USA is so resistant to Nord Stream II and preserving Ukraine's transit
fees for Russian gas. If it's so easy to cut your imports of Russian gas by more than half
that the poorest country in Europe can do it, why couldn't anyone do it?
Such as
the countries from whom Ukraine now buys its gas
– Slovakia, Hungary and Poland. Of the
three Slovakia is 90% dependent on Russian gas, Hungary 44%, and Poland 45%. These are the
countries that scream Nord Stream II must not be built – what would happen if Russia
stopped supplying them with gas? Where would Ukraine get its gas then? Where would its
suppliers make up their shortfall? American LNG? Ah ha, ha, ha!! Yes, I'm sure; forgive me
for laughing, I couldn't help it.
Russia is not making as much money, that's certainly true and will remain true for as
long as the west can force the price down through oversupply. Who will run out first? I
guess we'll see. But although profits are undeniably lower, Gazprom's exports to Europe
increased by approximately 16%
between January and May of this year. I think Europeans
should be asking themselves how important Ukraine really is in their gas-distribution
network. But bravo to Ukraine! See if you can reduce your Gazprom imports to zero! Now,
there's a worthy target. Just ask Daddy Pyatt from time to time how you're doing.
Back in the day contracts were "consensus in idem" or, my version =
"agreement in all essentials".
The "partners" ought to be aware that the RF (and its "emanations of the State" (c)
EU Law) appears to be relying on that, hmmm, understanding of "the rule of Law".
Chihuahua yelps and Banderastan yowls and EU poodle elite yips aside, the rest of the
wide world sees reality as the RF does.
"... Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones. ..."
"... Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought. ..."
"... Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. ..."
"... MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there, and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally. ..."
"... I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up. ..."
RUSH: Now,
I mentioned this, I think, in first hour, previously on the program. Obama has been refusing
to help Iraq for at least a year. A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out
ISIS. They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.
Had you heard of ISIS a year ago? I venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first
time in the past couple months. So Obama had plenty of chances. In fact, ladies and gentlemen, if
Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in
Syria! ISIS is who is "the rebels" in Syria opposing Bashar al-Assad. Before I get to Syria, I just
want to put the exclamation point on this thought.
Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media (their willing accomplices) need Iraq to be always
seen as a Bush miserable failure, a Bush war, a Bush failure. Just as Vietnam was supposed to be
seen as a failure for Nixon. Now, you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria
were ISIS. Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure
to help the Syrian rebels and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.
It's in The Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg. It's a long interview. But there is this
knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama, a comment that he made while Hillary was
his secretary of state. Do you remember he praised her, "best secretary of state ever"? She might
be, he said. On the day she resigned or the day they announced of her resignation, there was a joint
presser.
Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about how she may be one of the best secretaries
of state ever, and now here comes Hillary back-stabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help
the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS. Right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg: "The former secretary
of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine.
"She says this about President Obama's: 'Great nations need organizing principles, and "Don't
do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle.'" It's a slam, but I wonder: Are reset buttons organizing
principles? Because, let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader...
(pfft, slap myself) a Russian leader with a plastic and red toy that said, in crudely spelled words,
"reset button." I kid you not!
... ... ...
The conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people. Remember,
Obama, in the previous summer of 2013, issued this red line and dared Assad not
to cross it. (imitating Obama) "You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have
me to deal with," and we never did anything. But the word was out that Assad was
gassing and harming his own people. And I remember saying on this program -- Koko,
go back to that era and just for the website today, go find what I said on those
days and relink it, 'cause I made the point, I asked the question, "What if it
isn't Assad? What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies
disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make it appear as though
he's doing this, when in fact he's not?"
And after I'd mentioned that, I got an e-mail from a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances
in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew. And Hillary is now coming along and essentially
saying the same thing. She's not suggesting that ISIS was there. She is suggesting that our lack
of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS
all along. ISIS was doing it and they were making it look like Assad did it. And just like the media
was biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type of people in Syria who are
trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.
I had never seen any evidence that Bashar Assad -- his father was different. His father, Hafez
al-Assad, was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line. But there's no evidence
that Bashar had really done it. I knew that Al-Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control.
The Muslim Brotherhood's trying to gain control, that whole area. It was a lot of Christians in Syria
that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you, and it was made to look like it was
Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.
The point is I called it. I was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed
and that she was right about, but she never said it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. Here's me, folks, from this program on September 11th, 2013. By the way, Koko, if
you want to find the website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September
2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is. But this was September 11th of last year.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Here we are 12 years later after 9/11, and think about it. Twelve years later we
are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria. Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians
if they don't convert to Islam. That's who our allies are. Those are the rebels that Bashar Assad
is supposedly gassing. So we're aligned with 'em because we're aligned against Assad. They're threatening
to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.
RUSH: This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad. It was made to look like Assad was doing the
gassing. He wasn't, as it turns out. This morning on Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade spoke to retired
Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling
of ISIS and here's what the general said about Hillary's remarks.
MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing
for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there,
and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't
create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and
protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
RUSH: Well, that's General McInerney. I've got 15 seconds before the break. It turns out that
my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right, that Assad was not the bad guy.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I tell you what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton. It's clear to me that Hillary
Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still gonna be her strong pantsuit, as she heads
into the campaign. She really does. That's why she's doing all of this. But I want to play this audio
sound bite again from General McInerney, because there's a gem in this that is another example of
how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years, 2004 to 2009. Actually, 2003
to 2008 would be the specific time period, bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the
year.
One other thing. Koko has found exactly what I was talking about. There was a post at RushLimbaugh.com
on September 3rd, "What if Assad Didn't Do It?" And my memory has now been refreshed. I had a couple
of sources and an e-mail from a friend confirm, so three different confirmations here from people,
that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people probably wasn't
true. That it was, it turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq that was doing it, and
making it look like it was Assad, and that's who our allies were. We were anti-Assad and we actually
had an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.
I remember I took my fair share of heat, and I always do when I'm not part of the conventional
wisdom. Assad's easy to hate. Assad's a dictator. Assad has a typical bad image and when somebody
says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed. And here I came, all of Washington
supports the idea that Assad was doing it, and I said, "I'm not so sure. What if."
"Rush, you didn't have to say anything. Why are you going out on a limb? Why do you want to sound
like you're defending Assad?"
I said, "I'm not defending Assad. As always, I'm interested in the truth, and I just don't
believe --" I had to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming
out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power because, by and large, when it
comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence,
and the fact that they're wrong about everything. But here's McInerney again because there's a little
hidden gem in this sound bite that I want to see, if by some chance, some of you picked up.
MCINERNEY: I happen to agree with her. I'm not sure why it's just coming out now. I was pushing
for the Free Syrian Army. They were a huge ally. We ended up arming the wrong people over there,
and, remember, ISIS was formerly Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and so look at what we have now create -- we didn't
create it. By doing nothing, we let it create itself. And if we don't stop it now and stop it and
protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
RUSH: In the early days of 2002 when Bush was traveling the country making the case for invading
Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al-Qaeda,
prior to 9/11, had done some training in Iraq. And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out
shell of an airliner fuselage.
Now, the conventional wisdom was that Al-Qaeda had never been in Iraq, that Bush was making this
up, or that the intel was all wrong, but likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to
make their case, because Al-Qaeda was clearly the enemy after 9/11. Al-Qaeda had hijacked the planes
at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al-Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush
was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.
The Democrats and the media, led by Obama starting in 2002, and other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy,
they were all -- I mean, John Kerry, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al-Qaeda
had anything to do with Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq and nobody can prove it, they said. Saddam
had nothing to do with 911. Now, the Bush people at the time were saying, "We can't afford --" 9/11
had just happened. "What happened here is real. And any time there is anybody in the world vowing
to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously."
They were making the case for preemptive military strikes. That's what all this was called, because
the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, therefore it was
not moral or strategically wise to hit Iraq. They had nothing to do with it. The Bush people were
saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter, they're threatening to do the same thing.
And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people,
and we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.
Saddam at the time was lying to the UN inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction. It turned
out that he was big timing and he was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by
being the most feared. So he was lying about at least the size of his weapons of mass destruction
stock. And part of the lie, part of the illusion was to not let the inspectors in. He wanted everybody
to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff. And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody
we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action. We've got to hit preemptively.
I'll never forget any of this, folks. Because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it.
Because the Democrats, even after 9/11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived
a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting
credit for any policy he instituted following 9/11.
Also remember this, along those same lines. Bill Clinton, it was reported -- he later denied it
-- but Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9/11 didn't happen
on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership. He was upset
that it had happened with Bush. If it was gonna happen, why couldn't it have happened during his
time? We reported that and all hell broke loose. A string of denials were forthcoming.
But the point is they politicize everything. There was unity for a week and after that the Democrats
devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive
achievement in the aftermath of 911. So these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when
it came to Iraq. At first they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan. That's when they asked
for the vote a second time.
Remember, there was a memo uncovered, a memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat senator
from West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy -- and this had come from James Carville
and Stan Greenberg in a memo. It was then written up by Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee
ranking Democrat in the Senate. He said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar.
And it said if they were to succeed with this, that their strategy depended on convincing people
that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers. So,
as I say, here's the gem that was in McInerney's piece ('cause I'm running out of time here). Throughout
all of this in the run-up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al-Qaeda might have been
in Iraq came up, the Democrats said, "No way!
"Al-Qaeda never found its way to Iraq! They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if you gave 'em a
map. They haven't been to Iraq. They don't have anything to do with Saddam! They were helpless."
Now listen to what we just heard here. ISIS was originally known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now, some of
you might be saying, "Well, maybe so, Rush, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked."
It did!
We were able to confirm that elements of Al-Qaeda did connect with Saddam for training exercises
and so forth. But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here. ISIS and Al-Qaeda
in Iraq are all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood. And in Syria, we were actually,
stupidity and maybe unknowingly (given this bunch, I could believe it was unknowingly) supporting
them
Because we had concluded that Bashar Assad was the one gassing his own people. I had never seen
any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way. I knew he treated political enemies that
way, which is why it was not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own
people if he's gassed others. Ditto, Saddam and the Kurds. But there hadn't been any evidence that
Bashar Assad gassed his own people.
So, anyway, that's that, and it's just... Some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just
last year and some of it's just yesterday, and so much of it is lies. And so many of these lies are
why we're even here today. So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large
reasons why Obama was elected in the first place. It's just dispiriting in a way -- and in another
way, surely frustrating, and that's why I've been so ticked off all day.
"... If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!" I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians going back to the time of the Apostle Paul. ..."
"... On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their murderous hands. ..."
Why isn't the Mainstream Media (MSM) in America reporting the fact that Hillary Clinton admitted
in public that the U.S. government created Al Qaeda, ISIS, Al Nusra, etc.? Why does the MSM refuse
to tell the American people that the United States has not ever actually fought ISIS but instead
has surreptitiously and very actively supported ISIS and the other radical Muslim terrorists in the
Middle East? Why has the media refused to reveal the fact that ever since Russia started to fight
a true offensive war against ISIS the terrorist organization has been reduced to almost half?
I'll tell you why: the MSM is nothing more than a propaganda machine for the U.S. government--no
matter which party is in power. The MSM doesn't work for the U.S. citizenry. It doesn't even work
for its corporate sponsors. It works for the Washington Power Elite permanently ensconced in D.C.
(and yes, those same Power Elite control most of those media corporate sponsors).
It is a sad reality that if one wants to get accurate news reporting, one must mostly bypass the
U.S. propaganda media and look to sources outside the U.S. Here is a Canadian publication that covered
the Hillary admission:
"The following video features Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton acknowledging that America
created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:
"'Let's remember here the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago.
"'Let's go recruit these mujahideen.
"'And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand
of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.'"
"What she does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 35 years has the US ceased
to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing sovereign countries. It was 'a pretty
good idea', says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today:
"Amply documented, the ISIS and Al Nusrah Mujahideen are recruited by NATO and the Turkish High
command, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
"The more fundamental question:
"Should a presidential candidate who candidly acknowledges that 'We created Al Qaeda' without
a word of caution or regret become president of the US, not to mention Hillary's commitment to waging
nuclear war on Russia if and when she becomes president of the United States of America."
The report continues:
"The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is led by the United States. It is not directed against Al Qaeda.
"Quite the opposite: The 'Global War on Terrorism' uses Al Qaeda terrorist operatives as their
foot soldiers.
"'Political Islam' and the imposition of an 'Islamic State' (modeled on Qatar or Saudi Arabia)
is an integral part of US foreign policy."
The report further states:
"It is a means to destabilizing sovereign countries and imposing 'regime change'.
"Clinton's successor at the State Department, John Kerry is in direct liaison with Al Nusra, an
Al Qaeda affiliated organization in Syria, integrated by terrorists and funded by the US and its
allies.
"In a bitter irony, John Kerry is not only complicit in the killings committed by Al Nusra, he
is also in blatant violation of US anti-terrorist legislation. If the latter were to be applied to
politicians in high office, John Kerry would be considered as a 'Terror Suspect'".
Think it through, folks: the U.S. government creates the radical Islamic terror networks that
justify America's "Global War On Terror" which directly results in millions of refugees (and no doubt
plants terrorists among them) flooding Europe. At the same time, it purposely refuses to protect
our own borders and even forces states and local communities to accept hundreds of thousands of Muslim
refugees (but the government is not sending any Christian refugees to America, even though a sizable
percentage of the refugees include Christians also) and pushes NATO to the doorstep of Russia, which
to any objective observer could only be regarded as an overt incitement to war.
Furthermore, why doesn't the MSM report the words of Hillary saying that the "best way to help
Israel" is to destroy Syria? Why doesn't the media acknowledge that official U.S. foreign policy
is to foment perpetual war, not in the name of the safety and security of the United States, but
in the name of "helping" Israel?
Here is how the same Canadian publication covers this part of the story:
"A newly-released Hillary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately
provoked the civil war in Syria as the 'best way to help Israel.'
"In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the
'right thing' to personally threaten Bashar Assad's family with death.
"In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the 'best way
to help Israel' is to 'use force' in Syria to overthrow the government."
It continues:
"Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran's 'atomic bomb' program as a
hoax, (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use
these lies to 'justify' destroying Syria in the name of Israel."
And again:
"The email proves--as if any more proof was needed--that the US government has been the main sponsor
of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to 'protect' Israel.
"It is also a sobering thought to consider that the 'refugee' crisis which currently threatens
to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there
are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.
"In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to
Iraq--all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the 'rebels' and stoking the fires
of war in Syria."
If destroying Syria is the way we "help" Israel, how many other nations must the U.S. destroy
to "help" Israel? And before John Hagee's braindead disciples start shouting "Destroy them all!"
I remind you that Syria and other parts of the Middle East is the historic home of millions of Christians
going back to the time of the Apostle Paul.
The truth is, Hillary (and the rest of the grubby gaggle of Neocons) doesn't give a tinker's dam
about Israel. Neocons such as Hillary Clinton simply use Israel (and the misguided passions of Christians
and conservatives who blindly support Israel) as cover to accomplish their real agenda: manipulating
world governments to the enrichment and empowerment of themselves.
Donald Trump is untested. But if Hillary should be elected, I'm confident she would not make it
through her first term without taking us into another G.W. Bush-type war (or worse)--except she will
also add the attempted disarmament of the American people to her nefarious agenda.
That's what Neocons do: they foment war. To their very soul, they are warmongers. And never forget
that Hillary Clinton is a true-blue Neocon. Or if the word "Neoliberal" sounds better to you in describing
Hillary, so be it. They both mean the same thing: WAR.
Here is a good explanation of how both Neocons and Neolibs are working from the same script:
On the whole, Neocons and Neolibs are people without conscience. At their core, they have
no allegiance to the United States or any other country. They are globalists. The only god they serve
is the god of power and wealth, and they don't care how many people--including Americans--they kill
to achieve it. The blood of millions of dead victims around the world is already dripping from their
murderous hands.
And if you think my indictment against the Neocons is an exaggeration, Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan) was even more scathing in his condemnation
of them:
"The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely
insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since
Clinton's second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have
wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan
and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence
to do anything about it, and Washington's vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had
to pretend that this policy of international murder was 'bringing freedom and democracy.'
"The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear
weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial
for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.
"Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false
flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the
US and Russia to war."
Warning: Bellingcat is a disinformation outpost probably created by some intelligence agency. It
lied about MH17 extensively.
Notable quotes:
"... Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine ..."
"... This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader. ..."
3 Turkish specialized NATO regiments (20,000+ troops?} led coup attempt. Using Bellingcat translated
records of coup communications, Sybil Edmonds explains:
This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely
murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary
aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup
that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch
of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader.
[Tinfoil hat on] This points to a masterful hand behind the plot, perhaps a bit deficient in
purely military details but very capable in conspiratorial techniques. [delete]Gulen[end delete]
Putin! Putin theory could have a weak spot, namely that he is competent in purely military details,
but it can be elegantly rescued by the fact that he had no interest in actually replacing Erdogan,
but merely in rendering him ineffective against Russia. As Russians know only too well, the most
effective way of disabling a military organization is to imbue the national leader with total
paranoia. [Tinfoil hat off, malignant waves enter brain again]
Clearly, Erdogan is another person who benefits from the coup, and who has much simpler means
to assure that the leadership of the coup remains unclear: his devoted stooges run the investigation
after all! Moreover, Akira correctly observed that the past actions attributed to Gulen's movement
lacked outright violence. In my opinion, this stems from religious principles of Gulen himself,
his own interpretation of Islam (which clearly allows for intrigue and subterfuge). Gulen did
not create his movement in vacuum, he became a leader of followers of Said Nursi who died in 1960.
The way those movements (Nur of Nursi, Hizmet of Gulen) operated is compared to Sufi brotherhoods
which may be loosely hierarchical and highly conspiratorial. Some Sufi movements may be violent,
by calling to armed Jihad etc. However, Nursi was a pacifist. As I said, unlike some other Muslim
movements in Turkey. Erdogan has a somewhat murky religious movement of his own, and he clearly
accepts the concept of violent Jihad.
One can dwell more of it, but pretty safe conclusion is that we have two likely possibilities:
Erdogan pulling the strings (in that case, using Hakan Fidan, his spy master) and going to some
lengths to make the appearance that Guelen does it, or the reverse. Because of that, no single
piece of evidence is conclusive, any single person can be a double/multiple agent etc. And because
those possibilities are both so compelling, the true guiding master hand remains hidden (Putin!!!!).
Great stuff pb. I think that Erdo's 'genius' lies in his ability to react rather than act.
He just waits to see his chances then takes 'em. Having plans opens one up to having one's plans
divined by others and so defeated. His strength lies in his nihilism, the g-forces alone of his
about faces would so distort the physique of any ordinary man that he could never survive. But
Erdo is focused exclusively on his own ends - and possesses the magical ability of convincing
his followers of his invincibility and hence, of theirs. His survival of his seemingly endless
stream of volte faces proves this in the eyes of his followers and so confounds his more or less
principled opposition that their very bones melt and they puddle.
So the CIA, who have kept Gulen bottled up in their Pennsylvania super-fortress all these years,
perhaps their secret, kryptonite-like antidote to al-CIAduh, sprang him to avail Erdogan of yet
another of his nine-times-nine-lives, in order to keep his ego-driven presence alive and disruptive
on their geostrategic gameboard.
The terrifying thing from the CIA's/USA's point of view would be any kind of coherent coincidence
of aims among Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus, and the stans of Central Asia.
They feel that they can rely upon Erdo to keep the Caucasus and Central Asia high on its own version
of the Ottoman dream, and in competition with the Sunni/IS, the Shia, and Kurdish Axes.
If the Turkmen and the Shia were to cohere rather than contend, or, worse, the Turkmen-Shia-Kurds
were to do so, there would be far too much constructive activity in the Middle East for the empire
of chaos to survive there let alone prevail. The opposite hand of Putin did it! is ... the CIA
did it! I say the CIA did it. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
The real story will become apparent in the fullness of time.
"... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
"... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century',"
You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert
Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood
ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right
now.
Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in
establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.
The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began
with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that
has happened since.
Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy
Weaver's wife and baby.
"... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
"... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
"... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
"... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
"... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
"... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
"... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
"... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévičre back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance
to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly
an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But,
that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.
According to
at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy
version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military
Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S.
and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of
a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit,
Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance
special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton
quotes:
Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation,
in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America
manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?
One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors
to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another
version,
as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS
caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic
and economic interests.
The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs (
#مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون)
quickly started trending across social media in the region,
Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims
about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the
restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."
Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.
Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however.
Writing in his "Open Source" column for the
New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world
are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and
that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims
who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.
For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed
wrote
on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give
birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued
the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply
rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to
confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh
century."
That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has
spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.
Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!
Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World
plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview
and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.
America is better than that.
Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in
Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.
U.S. Policy in Chechnya
In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News
reporter James Gordon Meek got
an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise:
"Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.
ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007,
after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It
wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with
the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra,
lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.
"Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been
conducting
terror
campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success,
for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens:
the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and
the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above).
In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the
CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words,
with proven experience in a professional terror setting.
When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with
weirdly
bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington
have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United
States with infamously fatal consequences. Both
the 9/11 Commission Report and
FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic
terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as
actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias
Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp
run by the Saudi-funded
World Assembly
of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen
bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo,
ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by
Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.
Upon further digging by Palast:
Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin
Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence
had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden
brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis
to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians
grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to
roost.
As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said,
"It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been
on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing,
career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."
A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their
Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has
been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army,"
a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard
Labévičre back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains
of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."
Granted: The events of September 11th made this
grand strategy
a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years,
particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.
"... Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved. ..."
"... The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail. ..."
Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup; Insists US Had No Involvement in Failed Coup
Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any
prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved.
The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John
Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the
coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail.
Turkey cut power to the Incirlik Air Base, where many US warplanes and dozens of US nuclear weapons
are based, and jailed the commander as a co-conspirator to the coup. That, and Turkey's blaming of
cleric Fethullah Gulen, exiled to the US, as being behind the plot, are likely the source of a lot
of the speculation.
The US has been keen to keep its ties close to Turkey, whoever ends up running it, and the Obama
Administration is understandably eager to distance itself from any suspicion. This is a key part
of why the US has been so reluctant to seriously criticize Turkey's post-coup purge, and why Turkey
feels comfortable pressuring them to extradite Gulen without any evidence.
TEHRAN (FNA)- Arab media outlets quoted diplomats in Ankara as disclosing that Turkey's President
Erdogan was alerted by Russia against an imminent army coup hours before it was initiated on Friday,
while a western media outlet said Erdogan asked his supporters to remain in the streets after receiving
advice from Tehran.
Several Arab media outlets, including Rai Alyoum, quoted diplomatic sources
in Ankara as saying that Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, known locally as the MIT, received
intel from its Russian counterpart that warned of an impending coup in the Muslim state.
The unnamed diplomats said the Russian army in the region had intercepted highly sensitive army
exchanges and encoded radio messages showing that the Turkish army was readying to stage a coup against
the administration in Ankara.
The exchanges included dispatch of several army choppers to President Erdogan's resort hotel to
arrest or kill the president.
The diplomats were not sure of the Russian station that had intercepted the exchanges, but said
the Russian army intelligence unit deployed in Khmeimim (also called Hmeimim) in Syria's Northern
province of Lattakia is reportedly equipped with state-of-the-art electronic and eavesdropping systems
to gather highly sensitive information for the Russian squadrons that are on an anti-terrorism mission
in Syria.
Khmeimim in Northwestern Syria is the only Russian air force base in the war-ravaged country that
provides cover for Syrian army and popular forces in multiple fronts across the country, in addition
to bombing missions against terrorist targets. The Russian naval fleet, including its only aircraft
carrier, are deployed along the coasts of Lattakia border province to provide logistical aid to the
air base in a short time. Meantime, Russia has deployed its highly sophisticated S-400 air defense
shield at Khmeimim and announced that it covers the entire Syrian skies with the same air defense
system.
Last year, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi bomber over Syrian skies and President Erdogan who
was then a staunch enemy of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad rejected extending an apology to Moscow
for about a year, although economic sanctions by Russia as well as growing victories by the Syrian
army, popular forces, Hezbollah fighters, Iranian advisors and Russian air force that cornered the
terrorists in Syria and similar victories against ISIL in Iraq convinced the Turkish president to
not just apologize for the Sukhoi incident, but also show signs of a U-turn in foreign policy, saying
that he is dropping his opposition to President Assad.
Four days after the coup, officials in Ankara announced that the two Turkish pilots who played
a role in the downing of the Russian plane in November were in custody over the recent failed coup.
"Two pilots who were part of the operation to down the Russian Su-24 in November 2015 are in custody,"
a Turkish official told journalists on Tuesday, adding that they were detained over links to the
coup bid.
Russian President Vladimir Putin called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday,
describing the attempted coup as unacceptable and voicing hope for a speedy return to stability.
The diplomatic sources said the shift in Erdogan's foreign policy stated only a week before the
coup has been "a major cause pushing several foreign states to provoke and promise support for the
army to stage the coup, and the same shift also saved him" as it was not clear if the Russians would
provide Ankara with their intel, otherwise.
Officials of neither country have made any comment on the report yet. In Ankara, official sources,
including the Army itself, confirmed that the Turkish army's top generals had been informed of last
week's coup by the MIT hours before the plot came into action.
A statement issued by the army on July 19 described the events that took place on July 15, saying
a majority within the military managed to suppress the coup attempt due to information provided by
the MIT some five hours before the coup plot became public, national newspaper Hurriyet reported.
"The information given by the National Intelligence Organization on July 15, 2016, at around 4:00
p.m. was evaluated at the General Staff headquarters with the attendance of Chief of Staff General
Hulusi Akar, Chief of the Army General Salih Zeki Colak and Deputy Chief of Staff General Yasar Guler."
In order to counter the coup, high ranking officials within the Turkish army gave orders for all
air and ground forces around the country to immediately cease operations including military vehicles
such as tanks, planes and helicopters.
A report by Al-Jazeera Arabic suggests the coup plotters initiated the operation six hours ahead
of time as they had previously planned to launch the coup at 3:00 a.m. local time on July 16.
While the report does not indicate the reason for the coup being initiated ahead of time, the
revelation by the military suggests the coup plotters understood their plans had been compromised
and decided to act. 1
Reports also suggest the coup plotters had orders to kidnap or kill President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
as helicopters headed toward the hotel he was staying in at the holiday resort of Marmaris. But Erdogan
had left 44 minutes before they arrived, according to Al-Jazeera's report.
The official statements coming out from Ankara are in full compliance with the Arab media reports
quoting the diplomatic sources on the Russian intel.
Only four days after the coup, Erdogan appeared on the media saying that he plans to declare a
crucial turn in foreign policy that would "end differences with Turkey's neighboring states".
Less than a day later, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that President Erdogan would
visit Russia early in August to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Meantime, Iran rushed to condemn the Turkish army coup only two hours after it started. Several
top security and foreign policy officials in Tehran were in constant contact with President Erdogan
and his cabinet ministers all throughout Friday.
As July 15 was coming to an end in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was on
the phone with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, whose government was under the threat of
being overthrown by a military coup. Meanwhile, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC), was on another line with security officials in Ankara. All the while, Qassem
Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Iran's regional military
arm, was busy pursuing and reviewing various scenarios that might emerge.
"It's not a secret anymore," an Iranian official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "Zarif,
Shamkhani and Soleimani were executing higher orders. The whole establishment was too concerned.
Turkey is a neighboring state. President Erdogan and his government are strong partners of Iran.
Our nations enjoy strong brotherly ties, so it's the least we can do to show solidarity and try to
offer any help they might need in such critical times."
"Another Iranian official saw parallels between the successful coup against Iranian Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and this year's coup attempt in Turkey," Al-Monitor said.
The official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, "What we know is that this move was triggered
by foreign hands. We went through the same in the past, and because Mr. Erdogan is today looking
forward to playing a better role in the region, they want him down." The Iranian official said, "There
was a message that was conveyed to Turkish security officials: Don't leave the streets. This coup
might be made up of several waves; it happened in Iran in 1953. When the first coup failed, they
had another one ready - and they succeeded."
In Ankara, the government claims the coup and the generals behind it are loyal followers of US-based
Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen, who was once Erdogan's key ally before a major fallout in 2012. Many
believe that Gulen is the main cause of why Ankara officials have repeatedly accused the US of masterminding
the plot.
Gulen is running a multi-billion dollar enterprise in Saudi Arabia and has grown into a serious
bone of contention in Ankara-Riyadh ties. Saudi Arabia reserved condemnation of the coup in a suspicious
move. Later, reports surfaced the media that the top brass in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – two strong allies
of the US with unbreakably intimate ties with each other in the Persian Gulf – were involved in the
coup.
Saudi whistle-blower Mujtahid, who is believed to be a member of or have a well-connected source
in the royal family, dislosed that senior government officials in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had been informed
of the coup in Turkey long before it took place.
Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday that the UAE leaders had played a role in the coup
and the Turkish spy agencies have come to decode this involvement, adding that the UAE leaders had
also alerted the Saudis about the impending coup.
"Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman had been informed of the military
coup in Turkey," Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday.
"There are reasons to prove that given his intimate relations with Mohammad bin Zayed bin Sultan
Al-Nahyan (the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces), Mohammad
bin Salman had been filled with information about this coup," he added.
According to Mujtahid, Turkish intelligence agencies had received information about some negative
collaboration between bin Salman and bin Zayed, but the Saudis managed to convince the Justice and
Development party to rest assured and be optimistic about Riyadh's actions.
He revealed that bin Salman has been trying to convince the Turks to conceal the UAE's role in
the coup and has promised a large amount of cash in retribution.
The last week coup in Turkey is now growing into a major regional confrontation over Turkey's
shift in its Syria policy now. If confirmed, the Russian and Iranian aid to Erdogan would mean the
power balance and equations in the region ought to be redefined.
"... This research documents that the negative effects of globalization on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition, it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working class. ..."
The toughest question about global trade: This year's battle for the
White House has put international trade in the spotlight. Donald Trump has
led the charge against trade agreements, but Hillary Clinton's reversal
of her support for President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) also
reflects the evolving view of the benefits of globalization.
The American public has long been suspicious of international trade, but
economists have been much more supportive. However, new evidence in the
economics literature has caused a rethinking of how to evaluate trade agreements.
This research documents that the negative effects of globalization
on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition,
it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top
of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and
fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working
class.
One response from many advocates is to point out that international trade
has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty and that reducing
the pace of globalization would slow the rate of global poverty reduction.
All of which brings up an important and rather difficult question: Just
how should we value international trade? ...
Tom aka Rusty said...
Who decided that US workers would be required to sacrifice to create a middle
class in China (and the Chinese military, oops)? Why didn't the elites join
in the sacrifice? Why no transparency? Or was this pushed with great theories
that didn't work? Just wondering.
"... I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying. ..."
"... I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. ..."
"... My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month ..."
"... It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. ..."
"... when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything. ..."
"... This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience. ..."
"... To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents. ..."
And so President Barack Obama did an interview with Business Week in which he was congratulated
for his stewardship of the economy and asked "what industries" he might choose to join upon his retirement
from the White House. The president replied as follows:
… what I will say is that – just to bring things full circle about innovation – the conversations
I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and
organization in a way I find really satisfying.
In relating this anecdote, I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008
to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk
through that door and getting a job in finance. No.
My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class
in the middle of last month
... ... ...
It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere.
In the countries of Old Europe, maybe, powerful politicians sell out grotesquely to Goldman Sachs;
but when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture
capital, we have trouble saying much of anything.
I suppose that before voting for any candidate these days we would need him/her to be
able to demonstrate complete ignorance in every field.
This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is
a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ
so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not
scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and
complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics.
And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience.
The other aspect of this is the effect that developments in technology have had on previously
industrialized societies. In most of the countries of Western Europe industrialization created
a situation in which organized labour had real power and a distinctive voice. De-industrialization
has largely eliminated this from our political landscape with the result that people previously
represented by the unions no longer have either power or a voice. The alienating effect of this
can be seen in both Europe and the USA.
To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic
dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable
discontents.
The radical, and in many instance, violent responses to various local circumstances in widely
different parts of the world - USA, France, Britain, Turkey, Syria, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia -
one could go on - may seem to be quite distinct, but they surely have a common root; at a time
of rapid and radical change in the very texture of human life, growing inequality within is an
explosive factor.
"... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
"... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
"... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
"... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
"... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
"... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous
and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a
grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.
The
trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders,
but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought
that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one
way or another.
Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and
very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard
hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended
exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded
to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems
that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.
Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support
for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't
expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy
assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception,
and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.
Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as
an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating
belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests,"
they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.
Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic
engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for
lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran
is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.
Opposition to
the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition
to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat
from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually
moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions
from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious
and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries
at home.
Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly
or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct
foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch
Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
"... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
"... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The
Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with
the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a
non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an
operational plan.
Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good
barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign
policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion:
neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.
According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let
other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas
to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans
surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew
reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In
addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have
made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.
If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's
national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single
amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by
voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign
policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the
doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.
... ... ...
Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a
freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.
Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.
A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.
Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to
about $145,000 (Ł109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.
This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like
Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
"... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
"... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
"... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
"... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
"... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
"... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
"... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
"... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
"... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the
catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged
down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical
detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the
War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative.
Wikipedia offers a definition
of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory
and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in
nearly every country in the world.
Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain
a strong military capability and be prepared to use it
aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national
interests
Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on
anti-militarism, so I'll
essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition
Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum
required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense,
military power should not be used to promote national interests
I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.
... ... ...
My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.
First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming.
Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is
just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced
a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war
is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led
to disaster.
Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who
have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including
conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.
Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above
has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that
requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds
as national self-defense.
... ... ...
[^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits
to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically
justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people.
So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.
Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability
for force projection?
If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will
recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to
threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would
it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a
force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?
To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed
to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect
of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.
Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but
is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?
Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us
working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.
I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a
tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary
force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce
the same result.
We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive
Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army
at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity
than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly
described.
After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their
insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous
kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full
industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves
confronting each other in dubious peace.
Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization
as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually
the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless:
the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.
So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in
combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France
asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing
machine and everyone tells us how to use it.
Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty.
We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its
likely cause.
david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am
As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's
no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored
to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back
to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging
French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.
The position advanced in the essay is one for
an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of
the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics
held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are
neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content
to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent
on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is
the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.
But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given
the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war.
Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending
crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would
regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging
Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would
have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under
the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.
Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the
day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because
they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
… Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic
politics would likely horrify us both, but happily
jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm
Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military
is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can
focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.
Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm
Tacitus:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a
desolation and they call it peace).
LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm
from the OP:
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from
the catastrophe of the Great War
The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn
something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless
endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there
hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more
'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power
war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).
The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war.
That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.
-–
p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors
other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's
definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient
military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most
[militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5).
Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers
directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict
of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on
one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).
Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm
ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:
An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic
crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is
probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from
current stabilisation approaches.
Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further
war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.
Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm
The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate
resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of
competition for resources. Think Iraq.
Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the
ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of
the Commons" by David Bollier.
A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war
and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.
The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based
on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am
Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -
While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and
company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an
enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be
charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK
with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm
Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called
'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of
boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the
leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of
justice you are talking about… no?
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm
Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged
the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the
US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this
from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may
not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia
by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were
going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to
be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and
bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.
It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili,
who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color
revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel
in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found
out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according
to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this
from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I
probably don't need to spell out.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm
No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit
of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther
infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South
Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is
how the 2008 war started.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm
…a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many
places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians
migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz
writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got
screwed. Oh well.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s,
sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia
and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as
if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on,
these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering
territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come
to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.
Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm
We're a nation of killers.
Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and
placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against
humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and
passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being
convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who
would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully,
throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for
Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their
covert operations.
For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they
are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.
Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm
In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are
individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large
sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm
LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or
the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried
much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people
seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which
goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other
variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing,
of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections.
Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to
heard it said that navies were obsolete!
ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am
There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military
interventions in Iraq.
"The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised
by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were
invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.
Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at
Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be
prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was
killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about
Iraq's capabilities.
"If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said,
adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it,"
she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the
accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so
wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."
Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence.
"We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest
possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."
…
Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to
have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war
crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if
the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.
Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on
behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who
is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "
Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.
LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm
B. Dunbar @123
Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons
for that.
The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars
or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of
business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but
Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan,
etc.
So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of
wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current
conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful
in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.
The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter
alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is
suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come
up w other things, no doubt.
Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm
@120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic
cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have
had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too
difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of
ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were
cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's
okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the
outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm
My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the
Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will
have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared
with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it
is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard,
Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I
take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so
weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end
is near.
Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to
such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness
the fortunes of the Clintons.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am
Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -
If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand
poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard
to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it
over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of
noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear
stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?
As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic
goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with
their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain
all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become
less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant
crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve.
Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been
imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of
environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to
powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional
relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am
LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'
But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since
it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to
do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful
of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive
capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some
people. And now we have lots of them.
Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am
John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural
attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase
Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are
more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running
things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who
carry it out in the name of the state.
I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is
not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but
it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914.
The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for
a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that
the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.
Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed
force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war
relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They
chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish
on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.
stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm
"Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most
advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."
In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and
Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War;
the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a
major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the
Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the
Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful
capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to
remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World
Wars.
Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as
conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan
crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.
The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre
notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that
it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of
the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism
is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is
that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded
capitalist development.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am
' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'
This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example,
'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all,
in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having
clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because
Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e.
from the Americans' point of view).
A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war
with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist',
depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war,
and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively
limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.
But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made
that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and
population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.
Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.
Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm
Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with
imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World,
the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking
of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and
American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the
plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a
sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.
…WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its
security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":
In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran
to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems
seen worldwide today."
Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan
revolution…
And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm
Hidari @192
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no
WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.
End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not
enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some
(not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict
(sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen
much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd
be only one of multiple reasons, if that).
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm
Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)
Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential
election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in
Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy:
Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in
Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on
mutual interest.
He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him
whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told
him to "read between the lines."
"If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's
not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."
In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former
Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on
major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether
his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a
graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are
expected to attend.
Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the
'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.
If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch
exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.
HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He
does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt
why Ze K is so high on him.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm
You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the
fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?
LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?
B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on
this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to
the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the
govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what
they say.
You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd
be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when
the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read,
so I don't have to continue.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm
"You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they
say. "
You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now,
and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.
Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am
@Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -
Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically
(in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates
under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto
himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely
approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.
"... The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as it was in Libya. ..."
"... SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader can be tougher than her male counterpart. ..."
"... Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies. The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard. ..."
"... Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them. ..."
"... Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons. ..."
An incorrigible belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a
politician can possess.
... ... ...
Clinton gave two pages to the war in her memoir Living History. She sympathized there with the burden of responsibility borne by
President Johnson for "a war he'd inherited," which turned out to be "a tragic mistake." Johnson
is her focus: the man of power who rode a tiger he could not dismount. On a second reading, "mistake"
may seem too light a word to characterize a war that destroyed an agrarian culture forever and killed
between one and three million Vietnamese. "Mistake" is also the word that Hillary Clinton has favored
in answering questions about her vote for the Iraq War.
Like every Democrat who has run for
president since 1960, Clinton sometimes talks as if she wished foreign policy would go away. A president's
most important responsibility, she agrees, is to strengthen the bonds of neighborhood and community
at home, to assure a decent livelihood for working Americans and an efficient system of benefits
for all. Yet her four years as secretary of state-chronicled in a second volume of memoirs,
Hard Choices-have licensed her
to speak with the authority of a veteran in the world of nations. War and diplomacy, as that book
aimed to show, have become an invaluable adjunct to her skill set. Clinton would want us to count
as well a third tool besides war and diplomacy. She calls it (after a coinage by Joseph Nye) "smart
power." Smart power, for her, denotes a kind of pressure that may augment the force of arms and the
persuasive work of diplomacy. It draws on the network of civil society, NGOs, projects for democracy
promotion and managed operations of social media, by which the United States over the past quarter
of a century has sought to weaken the authority of designated enemies and to increase leverage on
presumptive or potential friends. Smart power is supposed to widen the prospects of liberal society
and assist the spread of human rights. Yet the term itself creates a puzzle. Hillary Clinton's
successful advocacy of violent regime change in Libya and her continuing call to support armed insurgents
against the Assad government in Syria have been arguments for war, but arguments that claim a special
exemption. For these wars-both the one we led and the one we should have led-were "humanitarian wars."
This last phrase Clinton has avoided using, just as she has avoided explaining her commitment to
the internationalist program known as "Responsibility to Protect," with its broad definition of genocide
and multiple triggers for legitimate intervention. Instead, in a Democratic primary debate in October
2015, she chose to characterize the Libya war as "smart power at its best."
The NATO action to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi, in which Clinton played so decisive a role,
has turned out to be a catastrophe with strong resemblances to Iraq-a catastrophe smaller in degree
but hardly less consequential in its ramifications, from North Africa to the Middle East to southern
Europe. The casus belli was the hyperbolic threat by Qaddafi to annihilate a rebel force in Benghazi.
His vow to hunt down the rebels "like rats" door to door could be taken to mean a collective punishment
of inhabitants of the city, but Qaddafi had marched from the west to the east of Libya, in command
of an overwhelming force, without the occurrence of any such massacre, and the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence assigned low credibility to the threat. Clinton took more seriously an alarmist reading
of Qaddafi by Bernard-Henri Lévy, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Susan Rice and Samantha Power,
and chose to interpret his threat as a harbinger of "genocide."
Landler, in his book Alter Egos on the Clinton-Obama relationship, joins the consensus
that has lately emerged from the reporting of Patrick Cockburn, Anne Barnard and other journalists
on the ground. "Libya," Landler writes, "has descended into a state of Mad Max–like anarchy";
the country is now "a seedbed for militancy that has spread west and south across Africa"; it "has
become the most important Islamic State stronghold outside Syria and Iraq"; "it sends waves of desperate
migrants across the Mediterranean, where they drown in capsized vessels within sight of Europe."
Clinton's most recent comments, however, leave no doubt that she continues to believe in the healing
virtue of smart power. The belief appears to be genuine and not tactical.
FOLLOW HER definition a little further and a host of perplexities arise. Cyber war could presumably
be justified as a use of smart power, on the Clinton model, since it damages the offensive capabilities
of a hostile power in an apparently bloodless way. Shall we therefore conclude that the deployment
of the Stuxnet worm against Iran's nuclear program was an achievement of smart power? Or consider
a related use that would disrupt the flow of water or electricity in a city of three million persons
controlled by a government hostile to the United States-an action aimed at stirring discontents to
spur an insurrection. Could that be called smart power? We approach a region in which terminological
ingenuity may skirt the edge of sophistry; yet this is the rhetorical limbo in which a good deal
of U.S. policy is conceived and executed.
Clinton also plainly has in view the civil associations that we subsidize abroad, and the democracy-promotion
groups, funded indirectly through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and
other organizations. The nonviolent protests that turned bloody in Tahrir Square in Cairo, and in
the Maidan in Kiev, received indications of American support by means both avowed and unavowed-a
fact acknowledged by Victoria Nuland (assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs)
when in December 2013 she said that more than $5 billion had been spent on democracy promotion in
Ukraine since 1992. If the story of the Syrian Civil War is ever fully told, we are likely to discover
that the early "liberal" or "moderate" rebels were encouraged in their misreading of U.S. intentions
through social-media messaging approved by forces within the U.S. government.
In Ideal Illusions-a study
of the history of NGOs, the international culture of rights and U.S. foreign policy-James Peck noticed
how the responsibilities of the caretakers of human rights had expanded after the 1970s "from prisoners
of conscience to the rights of noncombatants to democratization to humanitarian intervention." It
is the last of these elements that completes the R2P package; and Hillary Clinton is among its warmest
partisans. The Western powers have a moral obligation to intervene, she believes, especially when
that means guarding the rights of women and assuring the welfare of the neediest children. Her mistakes
in the cause have been not tragic like President Johnson's in Vietnam but, as she sees them, small,
incidental and already too harshly judged. One ought to err on the side of action, of intervention.
And military intervention in this regard bears a likeness to the "community intervention" that may
save the life of a child in an abusive family.
The bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were, among other things, an experiment to
prove the neoconservative strategy of "force projection." The experiment did not work out as planned.
By contrast, the test for liberal interventionists was Kosovo, and popular memory has abetted the
legend that Kosovo was a success. Thus Anne-Marie Slaughter was able to
write in a tweet
regarding the Munich Security Conference of February 2014: "Contrast b/w Serb-Kosovo panel this morning
& ME panel now at #msc50 so striking; in Balkans US was willing to ACT w/ diplomacy AND force." Recall
that, in order to create the nation of Kosovo, NATO acted against the nation of Yugoslavia with smart
power whose leading articulation was seventy-seven days of bombing. The satisfied pronouncements
on Kosovo and Libya that emanate from liberal interventionists show a striking continuity. As a director
of policy planning in Clinton's State Department, Slaughter had written to her boss three days after
the start of the NATO bombing of Libya: "I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you."
The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as
it was in Libya. There, too, genocide was said to be in progress-the slaughter of tens of thousands
of ethnic Albanians-but the reports were chimerical. In
First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and
the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Gibbs concluded that approximately two thousand
had been killed before the NATO bombing; whereas, during the bombing itself and in retaliation for
it, Serbian security forces killed approximately ten thousand. Given the status of the episode in
liberal mythology, the treatment of Kosovo in Living History is oddly minimal: less than a
paragraph, all told, scattered over several chapters. Living History was published in 2003;
and it seems possible that Clinton had an inkling of the mob violence that would break out in March
2004 in the nationwide pogrom against the Serbs of Kosovo-violence that would lead in early 2016
to the construction of tent cities in the capital, Pristina, and the firing of tear gas canisters
in parliament to protest the abridgment of the political rights of the remaining ethnic minority.
The aftermath of the Kosovo intervention has recently entered a new chapter. "How
Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS" was the astute headline of a New York Times
story by Carlotta Gall, on May 21, 2016. Gall's opening sentence offers a symptomatic tableau:
"Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds
of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an impoverished mosque
in a former furniture store."
SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country
for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to
inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point
is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have
absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence
of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility
for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of
that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt
pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there
is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader
can be tougher than her male counterpart.
Landler's account suggests that neither the Iran nuclear deal nor the restoration of diplomatic
relations with Cuba would have been likely to occur in a Hillary Clinton presidency. When President
Obama
announced the thaw with Cuba in December 2014, he said that the United States "wants to be a
partner in making the lives of ordinary Cubans a little bit easier, more free, more prosperous."
Clinton, by contrast, warned that the Cuban regime should not mistake the gesture for a relaxation
of hostility; and
on a visit to Miami in July 2015, she threw in a characteristic warning and proviso: "Engagement
is not a gift to the Castros. It's a threat to the Castros." She thereby subverted the meaning of
Obama's policy while ostensibly supporting the measure itself.
"Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire" was the title and message of a New Republic essay by Robert Kagan,
published in May 2014, about the time it became clear that President Obama would not be confronting
Russia over its annexation of Crimea and would disappoint the neoconservative appetite for regime
change in Syria. Writing in Hard Choices of the eastward expansion of NATO, Clinton concurred:
"In the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, some have argued that
NATO expansion either caused or exacerbated Russia's aggression. I disagree with that argument,
but the most convincing voices refuting it are those European leaders and people who express their
gratitude for NATO membership."
Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion
that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued
under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies.
The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was
George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment
of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding
NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the
fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion
of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard.
It would do no harm to her persuasiveness if Clinton admitted a degree of truth in the case made
by her opponents, whether on the Libya war, the advisability of repeating that experiment in Syria,
or the innocent design of propagating democracy that drove the expansion of NATO. An incorrigible
belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess.
Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least
three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have
indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them.
Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten
Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state,
Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary
Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons.
"... Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests. ..."
Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax
haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic
and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests.
As
part of its coverage of the Panama Papers, the Toronto Star recently
reported that Gildan Activewear paid only a
2.8% tax rate on more than $1.3 billion US in declared income the last five years
and it's unclear
if any of the apparel company's measly $38 million in tax was paid in Canada.
Brexit was a vote against London, globalization and multiculturalism as much as a vote against
Europe.
London is the world's single most important center of global finance - though that may be at
risk now. With the surrounding southeast region, it dominates the United Kingdom's economic
growth. It has some of the world's most expensive real estate and richest residents - and
absentee property owners. It is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. It is home to about
1 million continental Europeans. And it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. The
rest of England did not.
"... John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. ..."
What was really at stake was a closed vision of the future against a cosmopolitan one. The
divide was much less the prosperous versus the poor than it was city versus small towns, the
well-educated versus those without advanced degrees, and, most of all, the young versus the old.
Economic insecurity was, obviously, one of the things that drove the vote, but nostalgic
nationalism drove it more, and what was really striking was that the struggling young took it for
granted that the way toward a better future lay in ever-more European and planetary
consciousness, not in closing it down. The vote was intolerably cruel in particular to the
twentysomethings of Britain, many of whom did not hesitate to protest. They had gone to sleep on
Thursday evening with all the world, or at least with all of Europe, before them, as citizens
with possible futures in twenty-eight nations; they woke on Friday morning to be told that their
future would contract to one nation, and that one possibly shrinking before their eyes, right to
the Scottish border.
... ... ...
At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come
to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that
nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the
lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime
it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of
place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is
a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is
responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that
of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society,"
though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose
great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction
to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only
the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons
come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism
possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has
more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are
far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need
perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.
Whether it's having any effect will not be known until the vote on Thursday. What is known,
what the debate over the referendum has demonstrated with great clarity, is that there is in
Britain a populist strain of the sort that has brought nationalist governments to Hungary and
Poland, helped right-wing parties make strong showings in France and some other European
countries - and, in America, done much to promote the cause of Donald Trump. In the United States
and Britain, a relatively normal electoral process became seized with populist nationalism and
increasingly immune to normal political discourse.
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron announced back in 2013 that he would hold a referendum
on E.U. membership largely to mollify euroskeptics in his Conservative Party, presuming that
Britons would vote to stay in. Before long, a similar demographic gathered on the "Leave" side in
Britain and the Trump side in America - workers who felt alienated by a globalizing and changing
world, who felt politicians had ceased listening to them, who were convinced that tides of
foreigners were threatening their livelihood and identity.
And so the British referendum has become something of a battleground for all Western democracies
where anti-immigrant hostilities are building.
And even if the "Remain" side prevails on Thursday and Mr. Trump is decisively rejected in
November, Western democracies will need to take a long, hard look at the social divide, the
insecurities, the alienation, the nationalism and racism that have invaded so many political
battlegrounds.
"... Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, ..."
"... countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets. ..."
Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism
that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, said Singapore's Defence
Minister Ng Eng Hen.
The challenge for Singapore in the face of the Brexit vote, Ng said, will be to stay neutral and
not judge those countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing
anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their
markets.
"There is a resurgence of what pundits and political analysts call far-right, a rising
nationalism, which is a reaction hearkened to so-called 'good old days', not remembering that the
good old days also have many, many bad points," Ng told reporters at a media conference ahead of
Singapore Armed Forces day. "We want to be neutral, in terms of not being judgmental because this
is as history goes. But nonetheless, it is a challenge," he said.
As terrorism continues to represent a clear and present threat, Ng, 57, said no country was
immune to the defects of home-grown terrorism, and emphasized the need for international
cooperation to combat the heightened threat of global terrorism.
"You can monitor closely your borders, you can even close off your borders but homegrown
terrorism is something else. It is very hard to protect against lone wolves or wolf-pack attacks
-- somebody who is radicalized, who has really not been contacted physically by somebody outside
their own country," he said.
When the Brexit referendum is done, tens of millions of
Britons will likely have registered a vote against the liberal vision of European unity and
assimilation. In this country, even after the disastrous past few weeks Donald Trump has
had, a
new opinion poll, from Quinnipiac University, indicates that in crucial states like
Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains statistically tied with Hillary Clinton.
Why is this happening? Trump and his counterpart in
Britain, the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage, didn't
emerge from nowhere. Both are wealthy men who affect an affinity with the common people,
and who have skillfully exploited a deep well of resentment among working-class and
middle-class voters, some of whom have traditionally supported left-of-center parties.
Certainly, a parallel factor in both men's rise is racism, or, more specifically, nativism.
Trump has presented a nightmarish vision of America overrun by Mexican felons and Muslim
terrorists. UKIP printed up campaign posters that showed thousands of
dark-colored refugees lining up to enter Slovenia, which is part of the E.U., next to the
words "BREAKING POINT: The EU has failed us all." But racism and nationalism
have both been around for a long time, as have demagogues who try to exploit them. In
healthy democracies, these troublemakers are confined to the fringes.
Historically, transforming radical parties of the right (or
left) into mass movements has required some sort of disaster, such as a major war or an
economic depression. Europe in the early twentieth century witnessed both, with cataclysmic
results. After the First World War, the introduction of social democracy, the socioeconomic
system that most Western countries settled on, delivered steadily rising living standards,
which helped to keep the extremists at bay. If prosperity wasn't shared equally-and it
wasn't-egalitarian social norms and redistributive tax systems blunted some of the
inequities that go along with free-market capitalism.
But in the past few decades Western countries have been
subjected to a triad of forces that, while not as visible or dramatic as wars and
depressions, have proved equally destabilizing: globalization, technical progress, and a
political philosophy that embraces both. In the United States, it is no coincidence that
Trump is doing well in the Rust Belt and other deindustrialized areas. A one-two punch of
automation and offshoring has battered these regions, leaving many of their residents
ill-equipped to prosper in today's economy. Trump is exploiting the same economic anxieties
and resentments that helped Bernie Sanders, another critic of globalization and free trade,
carry the Michigan Democratic primary.
"There is no excuse for supporting a racist, sexist,
xenophobic buffoon like Donald Trump," Dean Baker, an economist and blogger at the liberal
Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington,
noted recently. "But we should be clear; the workers who turn to him do have real
grievances. The system has been rigged against them."
Similarly, it is not an accident that UKIP
is popular in the former mill towns of northern England, in the engineering belt of the
West Midlands, and in working-class exurbs of London. "Children emerging from the primary
school next door, almost all from ethnic minorities, are just a visible reminder for anyone
seeking easy answers to genuine grievance," the Guardian's Polly Toynbee wrote,
last week, after a visit to Barking, in Essex, which is close to a big car factory
owned by Ford. "As high-status Ford jobs are swapped for low-paid warehouse work,
indignation is diverted daily against migrants by the Mail, Sun, Sunday Times and the rest.
. . . This is the sound of Britain breaking."
For the past half century, the major political parties,
on both sides of the Atlantic, have promulgated the idea that free trade and globalization
are the keys to prosperity. If you pressed the mainstream economists who advise these
parties, they might concede that trade creates losers as well as winners, and that the
argument for ever more global integration implicitly assumes that the winners will
compensate the losers. But the fact that such a sharing of the gains has been sorely
lacking was regarded as a relatively minor detail, and certainly not as a justification for
calling a halt to the entire process.
If you are reading this post, the likelihood is that you,
like me, are one of the winners. Highly educated, professional people tend to work in
sectors of the economy that have benefitted from the changes in the international division
of labor (e.g., finance, consulting, media, tech) or have been largely spared the rigors of
global competition (e.g., law, medicine, academia). From a secure perch on the economic
ladder, it is easy to celebrate the gains that technology and globalization have brought,
such as a cornucopia of cheap goods in rich countries and rising prosperity in poor ones.
It's also tempting to dismiss the arguments of people who ignore the benefits of this
process, or who can't see that it is irreversible.
But, as Baker points out, "it is a bit hypocritical of
those who have benefited" from this economic transformation to be "mocking the poor
judgment of its victims"-especially now that the forces of global competition and
technological progress are reaching into areas that were previously protected. In a world
of self-driving cars and trucks, what is the future for truck drivers, cab and limo
drivers, and delivery men? Not a very prosperous one, surely. And the creative destruction
that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter celebrated won't stop there. With software
that can transfer money at zero cost, medical robots that can carry out the most delicate
of operations, and smart algorithms that can diagnose diseases or dispense legal advice,
what is the future for bankers, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals?
There is no straightforward answer to this question, just
as there is no easy answer to the question of what can be done to help those who have
already lost out. One option is to strengthen the social safety net and, perhaps, to move
toward some sort of universal basic income, which would guarantee a minimum standard of
living to everybody, regardless of employment prospects. The political enactment of such
solutions, however, is contingent on the existence of social solidarity, which the very
process of economic and technological change, by heightening inequalities and
eroding communal institutions, undermines.
Lacking grounds for optimism, and feeling remote from the
levers of power, the disappointed nurse their grievances-until along come politicians who
tell them that they are right to be angry, that their resentments are justified, and that
they should be mad not just at the winners but at immigrants, too. Trump and Farage are the
latest and most successful of these political opportunists. Sadly, they are unlikely to be
the last.
"... In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites. ..."
"... And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries. ..."
"... In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost. ..."
"... In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries. ..."
"... As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy." ..."
Some of us have long predicted the breakup of the European Union. The Cousins appear to have just
delivered the
coup de grace
.
While Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the
EU, England voted for independence. These people, with their unique history, language, and culture,
want to write their own laws and rule themselves.
The English wish to remain who they are, and they do not want their country to become, in Theodore
Roosevelt's phrase, "a polyglot boarding house" for the world.
From patriots of all nations, congratulations are in order.
It will all begin to unravel now, over there, and soon over here.
Across Europe, tribalism, of all strains, is resurgent. Not only does the EU appear to be breaking
up, countries appear about to break up.
Scotland will seek a second referendum to leave the UK. The French National Front of Marine Le
Pen and the Dutch Party for Freedom both want out of the EU. As Scots seek to secede from the UK,
Catalonia seeks to secede from Spain, Veneto from Italy, and Flemish nationalists from Belgium.
Ethnonationalism seems everywhere ascendant. Yet, looking back in history, is this not the way
the world has been going for some centuries now?
The disintegration of the EU into its component nations would follow, as Vladimir Putin helpfully
points out, the dissolution of the USSR into 15 nations, and the breakup of Yugoslavia into seven.
Czechoslovakia lately split in two. The Donbass seeks to secede from Ukraine. Is that so different
from Transnistria splitting off from Romania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceding from Georgia, and
Chechnya seeking separation from Russia?
After World War II came the disintegration of the French and British empires and birth of dozens
of new nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. America returned the Philippine islands to their
people.
The previous century saw the collapse of the Spanish Empire and birth of a score of new nations
in our own hemisphere.
In Xi Jinping's China and Putin's Russia, nationalism is rising, even as China seeks to repress
Uighur and Tibetan separatists.
People want to rule themselves, and be themselves, separate from all others. Palestinians want
their own nation. Israelis want "a Jewish state."
On Cyprus, Turks and Greeks seem happier apart.
Kurds are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iraq, and perhaps soon from Syria and Iran. Afghanistan
appears to be splintering into regions dominated by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.
Eritrea has left Ethiopia. South Sudan has seceded from Khartoum.
Nor is America immune to the populist sentiments surging in Europe.
In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of
the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites.
And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural,
multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born
white working and middle classes in the primaries.
In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported
"Remain." All lost.
Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party alone won.
In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the
establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated
in the Republican primaries.
As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing
on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money
for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment
of the American worker and the American economy."
Yesterday, news arrived that in May alone, the U.S. had run a trade deficit in goods of $60 billion.
This translates into an annual deficit of $720 billion in goods, or near 4 percent of our GDP wiped
out by purchases of foreign-made rather than U.S.-made goods.
In 40 years, we have not run a trade surplus. The most self-sufficient republic in all of history
now relies for its necessities upon other nations.
What might a Trumpian policy of Americanism over globalism entail?
A 10 to 20 percent tariff on manufactured goods to wipe out the trade deficit in goods, with the
hundreds of billions in revenue used to slash or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.
Every U.S. business would benefit. Every global company would have an incentive not only to move
production here, but its headquarters here.
An "America first" immigration policy would secure the border, cut legal immigration to tighten
U.S. labor markets, strictly enforce U.S. laws against those breaking into our country, and get tough
with businesses that make a practice of hiring people here illegally.
In Europe and America, corporate, financial, and political elites are increasingly disrespected
and transnationalism is receding. An anti-establishment, nationalist, populist wave is surging across
Europe and the USA.
It is an anti-insider, anti-Clinton wave, and Trump could ride it to victory.
"... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument
that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and
Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism
preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.
Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to
accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of
American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this
election year will require all of his oratorical skills.
Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley
and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard
hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members
will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.
In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose
political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union
membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former
secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position
on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her
party turned sharply against free trade.
"President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S.
Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free
trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."
The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to
set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence.
Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses
to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.
Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review into
the Labour party's supposed "anti-semitism crisis" – in fact, a crisis entirely
confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have
repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much else)
are being thrown at Corbyn to discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this
campaign and Labour's response
here
,
here
and
here
.
In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed
for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of
states that are Islamic. He said:
Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the
Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled
Islamic states or organisations.
But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing
Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even
close.
First, even if he had said "Islamic State", which he didn't, that would not have
meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people
make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic
background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or
Muslims.
In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to
Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims easily feel an affinity
with a terror organisation, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state
(which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is
far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.
But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any
such comparison. He clearly referred to "various self-styled Islamic states or
organisations". A spokesman later clarified that he meant "Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Iran or Hamas in Gaza". In other words, "various self-styled Islamic states and
organisations" – just as he said in the speech.
Surprise, surprise, the supposedly liberal
Guardian
's coverage of this
incident is as appalling as
that
found in the right wing
Telegraph
. The
Guardian
has an
article
, quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an
anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course,
that he didn't.
In fact, contrary to all normal journalism, you have to read the
Guardian
story from bottom-up. The last paragraph states:
This story was amended on 30 June to correct the quotation in the second
paragraph. An earlier version quoted Corbyn as saying: "Our Jewish friends are no
more responsible for the actions for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu
government than our Islamic friends are responsible for Islamic State."
Or in other words, the
Guardian
reporter did not even bother to listen to
the video of the speech posted alongside her report on the
Guardian
's own
website. Instead she and her editors jumped on the same bandwagon as everyone else,
spreading the same malicious rumours and misinformation.
When it later emerged that the story was a complete fabrication – one they could
have proved for themselves had they listened to what Corbyn really said – they simply
appended at the bottom a one-par mea culpa that almost no one will read. The
Guardian
has continued to publish the same defamatory article, one based on a
deception from start to finish.
This is the very definition of gutter journalism. And it comes as the
Guardian
editor, Kath Viner, asks (begs?) readers to dig deep in their pockets to support the
Guardian
. She
writes
:
The Guardian's role in producing fast, well-sourced, calm, accessible and
intelligent journalism is more important than ever.
Well, it would be if that is what they were doing. Instead, this story
confirms that the paper is producing the same shop-soiled disinformation as everyone
else.
Save your money and invest it in supporting real independent journalism.
At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come
to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that
nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the
lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime
it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place
and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a
vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is
responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that
of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society,"
though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose
great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction
to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only
the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons
come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism
possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has
more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are
far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need
perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.
"... There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same. ..."
"... This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia? ..."
"... Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians. ..."
"... The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria. ..."
"... My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire. ..."
"... Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished. ..."
"... Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created. ..."
"... pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton.. ..."
"... toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up.. ..."
"... Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory. ..."
"... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT ..."
"... 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years' ..."
There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone
over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling
for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same.
Then yesterday the Yazidi woman who was held as a "sex slave" by ISIS testified before Congress
and called for Obama to set up no fly zones so refugees could find safety. Her testimony was horrific
and only the most heartless could dismiss her story. But since ISIS does not have nor has ever had
an airforce it is not clear how a no fly zone would have prevented the horror she experienced.
This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who
are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary
really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia?
ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 3:27:26 PM |
2 Northern Observer | Jun 22, 2016 3:35:04 PM |
3
Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3
scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice
his nation for Assad or the Iranians.
The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking
and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation
but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria.
#10 wow. For once I agree with you. Those forces working for the no fly zone over Syria do
not want nuclear war. They happen to believe that in any game of chicken the Russians will blink
first. However, I would hope that this would happen but there are other scenarios here short (it
is hoped) of nuclear war. The Russians also do not want nuclear war. They like the Chinese have
been preparing their military in conventional war tactics against the US. Not that these tactics
will defeat the US but that they will cause so much damage that it would drain domestic support
for future US aggression against those countries.
Both China and Russia have concentrated their defenses on anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles.
Today, the Russians have the ability to sink any US warship in either the Black or Baltic seas.
The Russians have made those weapons available to Iran and they may possibly be able to easily
sink any destroyer or cruiser in the Persian Gulf.
My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools
running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China
really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will
not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip
wire.
Wayoutwest@10 - "...but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria..."
Whaa...? You're talking about Americans, right?
The soft invasion of Syria is happening as we speak. What's the latest roll call: French, Belgian,
German, UK special forces? Norway on deck? NATO has already invaded without confronting Russia.
The U.S. will not permit Sunnistan to fall. If you don't believe the pipeline reason, then you
have to recognize the NATO Sunni Corridor must exist to block the Shia Corridor from Iran.
The U.S./Israeli plan to separate Syria and create the Sunni/Turkey corridor is going along
as always planned - although they're rushing as of late. We're at the stage where Turkey and Jordan
are shutting their borders. Useless in practice, but necessary to give western MSM the cover story
of the threat of ISIS spreading to those countries. Laughable because that's where the head-choppers
came from, but reason has nothing to do with propaganda. ZATO has to foment a massive, well-publicised
humanitarian crisis to justify the next partitioning step.
Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered
reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates
a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones.
Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in
a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation
Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished.
Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover
chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they
want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel
have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than
oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign
diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they
created.
Halliburton and their little Cheney KBR buddy are already salivating over the reconstruction
contracts. Let's get those damn blue helmets in there! The former KBR is loosing money every second
this scheme is delayed.
pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay
to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity
in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue
about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton..
toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland...
enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake
up..
System is fubar. People are fed up. Let the chips fall where they may. Smart play is to get
out of EU.
Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been
exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily
defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory.
@34 ghubar shabih 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia
for years'
I'm sure you meant John Brennan. Wikipedia has
At one point in his career, he was a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton.
In 1996 he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers bombing killed
19 U.S. servicemen. In 1999 he was appointed chief of staff to George Tenet, then-Director
of the CIA
I hadn't realized he was in Saudi Arabia. I also hadn't realized that he was out and in the revolving
door before working for Obama, before having Obama appoint him head of the CIA
His last post within the Intelligence Community was as director of the National Counterterrorism
Center in 2004 and 2005, which incorporated information on terrorist activities across U.S.
agencies.
Brennan then left government service for a few years, becoming Chairman of the Intelligence
and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). He continued
to lead TAC after its acquisition by Global Strategies Group in 2007 and its growth as the
Global Intelligence Solutions division of Global's North American technology business GTEC,
before returning to government service with the Obama administration as Homeland Security Advisor
on January 20, 2009.
Made good connections on the other side of the revolving door, I'm sure. No doubt the kickbacks
will flow from the drone builders/operators and the electronic communications spies after his
next trip through.
He may not be as good as the parrot with Arabic, but he had Obama parroting his lines very
well throughout his eight long years. Obama will share those kickbacks as well, I'm sure. Polly
wants a cracker.
"... united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls]. ..."
united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto
the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes
of Chinese girls].
"... Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. ..."
"... The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55 mm]. ..."
WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT. NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED SECRET//NOFORN .
TEXT: 1. ( S//NF ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Weapons from the former Libya
military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to
the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons
shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm
and 155mm howitzers missiles.
2.( S//NF }During Ihe immediate altermath of, and following the
uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in
October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the
former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were
shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and
the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to
the small amount of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The
ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to
hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo. (NFI)
3. ( S//NF ) The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August
2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG's, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers
missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500
Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and
approximately 400 howitzers missiles [200 ea - 125mm and 200ea - 1[55
mm].
(b)(1) Sec. 1. 4(c).(b)(3): 10§USC 424,(b)(3):50§USC 3024(i)
REDACTED
CLASSIFIED
"... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
"... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
"... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
"... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
"... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
"... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
"... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
"... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
"... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
"... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
"... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
"... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
"... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
"... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
"... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
"... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
"... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
"... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
"... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
"... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
"... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
The U.S. is
unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants
a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration
of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.
After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama
broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S.
supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government
in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.
Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at
least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its
"moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate"
friends.
The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only
response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates"
continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.
After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested
separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently
expressed the Russian consternation:
The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members
from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months.
I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra
Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum.
The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda
was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by
hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:
Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier
this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military
officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.
The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously
active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
...
These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations,
around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
...
The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated
area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and
equip fighters against Islamic State.
When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon
orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.
U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again.
Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.
This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes
the intend clear:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters
it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.
Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate
exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."
The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British
and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority
of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted
to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until
the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere
and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different
story.)
The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia.
It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other
Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's
ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying
in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?
The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the
wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations.
You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for
the Russian air force. "
The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned
to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually
a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria
would be split apart.
The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to
free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have
held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops
get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle
is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian
entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern
city.
The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back
and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.
What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM |
Permalink
Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution
is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply
and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting
terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better
still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy
with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be
vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is
believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded
on to supertankers bound for the west".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious
regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout
the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of
the Middle East.
@Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue
that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which
faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an
expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it
seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser
Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington,
June 2016. is well worth the listen to .
Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0
Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus
....
@2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the
alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning
for absolute overt total war against Syria.
It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply
as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty
pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the
2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s.
in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope
to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to
be insane w/ hillary.
"On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group
that's backed by the U.S.
Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting
different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels
who've been trying to overthrow it.
The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate
and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."
Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning
Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.
harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a
political transition right now.In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down
and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see
6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer,
who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought
on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)
Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied
he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship
has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians
be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The
rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in
Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good
will'..
I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation
with Russia is (of course) too risky.
As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred
soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack
against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged
in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.
The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness
with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether
the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the
proxy army of Sunni extremists.
Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications
that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics.
They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas
for Russia to avoid bombing) .
The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA
from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular
attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely
shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks
raised suspicions) .
Note:
1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They
were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked
months before or after the time that they actually did attack.
2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is
(as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same
as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that
she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.
3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family'
they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via
the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?
4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the
Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.
5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and
middle-class lifestyle.
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm
of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs.
james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile
of bullshite".
In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more
than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.
Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against
the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.
This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and
its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge
of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel
on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.
The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very
clear.
Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just
theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted
... Obama as victim of palace infighting.
PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to
George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.
While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were
US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment.
He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told
that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he
could not be trusted.'
The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter
what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes
to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign
policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community
of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must
be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the
southern corridor to Damascus.
It must be the
US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads
for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish
an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment
for Assad and allies.
Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:
On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the
Kmeimim base.
That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...
The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared
to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO
op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the
time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily
been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff
and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar
to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing
the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights
the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing
moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the
Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
"U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."
Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is
not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva
statement!
I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite
well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).
Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn
speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming
hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for
sure. It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban
is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation
of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots
performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units
for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the
combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of
anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message
of the Defense Ministry.
Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's
integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern
country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."
"We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the
conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be
formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach
peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."
Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei # Shoigu ordered the Chief of
the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei #Chvarkov
to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining
national truce process.
To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present
at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to
Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer
ISIS to Assad.
b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in
Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless
who is in the WH.
@7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how
thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina
Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until
the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it.
So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS.
The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?
But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities
worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other.
Grotesque stupidity.
Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While
Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela
in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's
warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...
Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh:
Part Two
I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence,
and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy
US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They
seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand
up to them.
What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all
this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every
permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.
It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the
US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily
stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains
frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.
Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch
of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its
knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this
I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its
time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit
range of years.
@39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily
weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to
fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China
have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is,
so Syria has been quite a stretch.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe
a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do
it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region
are until after the fact.
I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that
will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of
accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad
I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that
the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more
or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM |
44
Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can
someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol,
made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy.
Where do I enlist!
In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests
of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive
and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and
4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command
goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might
have a major problemo.
I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil
dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents
here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who
will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps
have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.
And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.
I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has
he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the
50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's
maybe a bargaining chip ...
Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests -
making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so
that we don't have to fight them here .
Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM |
51
Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at
least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.
Obama's Strategy
has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia
however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and
part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want
out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more
aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members
of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their
law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.
On
the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially
the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France
and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy
and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more
or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be
difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such
a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country
where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the
inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would
be in the making.
The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the
same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main
lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The
US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda
more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong
at some point but not by the Russians as of now.
"But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."
No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM |
53
@dahoit
I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven
liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone
doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean
I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.
Trump is just an Obama from the left
and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and
is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.
Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants
himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short
of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one
thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for
now.
The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone
to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the
trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the
system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone
knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually)
or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting
to see it having such large part in modern politics.
ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that
PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept
your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually
and morally challenged sedated.
A piece in
today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick
by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must
go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness
favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already
started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.
Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:
". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink
to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."
This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed
questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt
of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion
of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than
he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had
kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on.
Very diplomatic, and wise.
Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink
to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.)
After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers
for the first time since before Easter.
Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia.
They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the
cat starts getting ready to eat you.
lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and
type fast for what it's worth.
Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour
Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia
here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed
revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a
simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the
hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop
itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty
of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have
a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.
The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions
in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.
Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the
Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around
Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential
Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.
The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons,
so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it
exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much
over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state.
I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as
well.
If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic
names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used
in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.
This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels
from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.
Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading
up to the Warsaw summit.
Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec
asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away
from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot
to say about missiles. I wonder.
DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year.
An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense
economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.
A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone
else is inherently a world of conflict.
Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted
by political upheaval, terrorism or war.
Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com,
but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention,
I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it,
but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running
for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.
But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep
from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and
who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat
party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make
the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right
and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy
of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he
could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest.
He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row
to hoe.
But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining
up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing'
whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons
on his payroll.
Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural
focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.
I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the
write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters
we'd be off and running ourselves.
Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments
held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing
military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.
The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the
Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on
June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.
Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered
bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American
party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.
The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member
states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party
has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This
caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.
Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the
Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.
Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling
a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there
has been no significant progress reached.
The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening
cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents
while performing military operations in the territory of Syria
So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up
with ...
@ jfl | 67 Ok. Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure
US-borders. Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive
and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately,
under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the
outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin
acted angry about it.
The choices we have:
a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted
angry on TV for public perception.
b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.
So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which
leaves us with option a)
*Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least
push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats
(like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and
facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they
are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class
act under duress.
I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).
Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect
other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under
much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal)
and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.
No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the
hegemon.
It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
The insanity is palpable, no?
I already posted that in #64
and jfl reacted in #67
In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:
The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran
an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing
important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited
all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission:
Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced
out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an
extensive interview:
Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision.
Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and
the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do
the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them
much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear
moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.
Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible
pick for Vice President.
Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria
in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege
on the
strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments
by different Western states.
The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015
and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.
France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria
on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and
are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.
"I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less
bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."
The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships
internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The
British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering
the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".
Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the
U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating
with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.
The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the
trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia
in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself
and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would
mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists".
The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are
a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of
its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended
period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating
a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners
should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1
mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
~~~
Russian hypersonic weapons
The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which
flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude
below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and
cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially
independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and
T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads,
the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched
normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
~~~
Hypersonic concept for a war
The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to
be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups
from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic
weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion
in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing
the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane
Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the
middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm
Associated Press 6/19/2016 Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately
targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their
locations.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the
strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the
U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.
The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss
Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition
forces fighting the Islamic State group.
"Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through
proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns
for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.
Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned
strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces,
"making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."
He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations
of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the
Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.
Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were
trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.
A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based
monitoring group.
The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which
is controlled by jihadist groups.
Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.
More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now
closed its borders to Syrians.
The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable
to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.
As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.
Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.
Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across
the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.
IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners
who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.
I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends
to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely
vulnerable, shattered, society.
One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are
killed others just show up!
This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either:
ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New
Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters
against Assad.)
All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)
The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send
money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,'
violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all
would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and
various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and
so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no
longer *that* attractive.
Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against
the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity.
'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.
The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.
A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos
etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with
actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality
on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals
of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex
geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities
as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable
to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.
In
this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands)
to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives
of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi
by US top political "elite".
In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche
of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians,
who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow,
do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge
issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire)
and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism
entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious
to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.
@ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries
for the losing side.
It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just
in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious
at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so
many ways that are not completely obvious.
The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is
losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower
the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary
instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to
the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.
And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against
the wishes of its sponsor the US,
joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some
areas matters more than staying with the loser.
It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to
the boil if we want to.
Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi
oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.
51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds
of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies...
Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal
and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign
policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You
know, the hard part, what follows?
Notable quotes:
"... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
"... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
"... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
"... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
"... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
"... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
"... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
"... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
"... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
"... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
"... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
"... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
"... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
"... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
"... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
"... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
"... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
"... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
"... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
"... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
"... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
"... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
"... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
"... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
"... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
"... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
"... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
"... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
"... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
"... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
"... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
"... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
"... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
"... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
"... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
"... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
"... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
"... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
"... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
"... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
"... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
"... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago
These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation,
destruction and disaster?
A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended.
When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question
to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."
We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate
another Iraq.
Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago
Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian
civil war?
Here's a helpful hint:
If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah,
those are the guys the neocons support.
If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone
you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.
Retroatavist, DC 10 hours ago
This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic
war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons
have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's
as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into
by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy.
And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and
up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would
an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic
favor?
Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago
How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for
the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?
Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago
Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian
support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation,
destruction and disaster?
A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended.
When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question
to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."
We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate
another Iraq.
Alyoshak, Durant, OK
Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such
declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the
memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing
the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led
to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees.
But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame
for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when
the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral
and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?
Everyman, USA 16 hours ago
Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being
better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm
sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these
guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.
Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago
It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's
foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.
I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter
who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited
engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at
the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.
Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago
Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.
The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries.
The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with
Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.
This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their
2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.
Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago
Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert
and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed
the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy
objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground
forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency)
pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated
peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the
policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.
Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance
on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk
response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the
consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is
long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.
Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago
My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let
these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll
bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.
Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago
These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly
unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally
and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they
have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed.
A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding
the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture
of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn
series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case
here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control
of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is
perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor
is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.
AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago
How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably
have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League
schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class
of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct
to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism.
Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white
Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring
order to the world.
Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted
as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue
stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish
people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American
military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.
Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq
in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest
arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.
Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago
Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed
they will cause.
Samsara, The West 16 hours ago
Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??
Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago
The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:
Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.
Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only
reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran,
and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money
they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.
Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president
soon enough.
Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago
Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya
back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just
go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.
Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago
This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with
the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians
and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.
If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut
will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.
Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago
Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the
Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we
are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They
use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.
Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly
what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll
continue to win.
If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we
could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash
from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the
end, the tally would be far fewer.
Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win.
And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home
to them too.
Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago
Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and
unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria?
Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join
up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it
all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have
you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to
1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.
The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks
on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006,
yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's
treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed
up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now,
you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,
In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and
Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.
Bev, New York 16 hours ago
Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed
a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources,
killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power
which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important
part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning
from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.
ME, Toronto 13 hours ago
Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice.
To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various
U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should
be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian
concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly
government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should
be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything
good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement
(as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that
is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we
would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.
Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago
I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels
who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government
that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people
at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement
in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster
in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the
sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make
some level of concessions.
Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago
Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those
drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at
risk.
Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own
trash out.
I couldn't agree more.
blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago
Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American
armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments.
Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational
civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.
Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike
those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite
Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats
need to stick to diplomacy.
Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago
This situation is not that simple.
There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad
wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have
been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas
which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.
Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:
We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a
War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually,
their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive
war without any cause - for the USA!
But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good
enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped
for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?
Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living
standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother
of All Arab Springs in the desert.
So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work.
Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?
Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago
How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls,
chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin.
This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates
like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS
group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever
read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.
Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago
Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would
be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring
its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting
the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the
US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested
interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track
following the Iran deal.
Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago
This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats
think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon
view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.
Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago
Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was
shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries
of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single
day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that
country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned
about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent
trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad
state of affair.
pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago
Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years,
we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might
happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago
In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the
US State Department who signed this memo?
Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS
is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.
And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya
does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.
Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present
in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like.
They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve
one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.
I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to
a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution
would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing
and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.
I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.
Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago
Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.
The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no
one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how
the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they
did in Iraq.
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago
Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to
effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex
is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result
in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS
came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace
Prize president; who wasn't).
So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already
using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US
follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism
attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.
Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the
two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's
idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced.
Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.
But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait
until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.
Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.
Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago
The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk).
More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and
destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for
deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were
solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.
For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity
between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria.
The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist
(and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists
for decades.
To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and
funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to
support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.
CT View, CT 17 hours ago
The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself
"what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft
memo does not address."
Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious
support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we
tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half
were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since
the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can
take the front line...would that change their opinion?
Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago
I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers.
Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the
use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware
of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations
will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander
in chief in effectively addressing these issues?
Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.
Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago
Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel
does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and
ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain
of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be
resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon,
and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.
Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago
Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!
Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!
It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering
fools. How many neocons are among them?
The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered
American blood and treasure.
Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps
they will volunteer to go to Syria.??
President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of
the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine
him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel
during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates.
America deserves better!
xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago
As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is
going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.
So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what?????
And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department
of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.
My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition
and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve
the mess in the ME.
David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago
War is easy to do. Ask "W."
Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.
Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago
It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted
regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried.
If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.
PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago
US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control
of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people
led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30
years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power
of Sunni supremacists after each act.
Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago
These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting
terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.
Thank you.
cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago
How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's
inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices
I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.
Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago
How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have
their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and
Orlando.
We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped
with hatred.
These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.
John, San Francisco 15 hours ago
50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%.
Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.
Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago
Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous
letter.
John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago
Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of
Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the
entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed
400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate
back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's
marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this
astounding stupidity.
Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago
This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian
interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.
rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago
Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge
mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United
States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government
in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle
under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing
their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps,
Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing,
more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East
the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins,
she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help
us!
xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they
please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade,"
can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for
humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just
don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things
I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.
Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago
This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems
to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm
extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren?
Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this
endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?
Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago
First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about
policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems
the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists.
Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past
mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.
Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago
The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the
Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic
results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended
the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done
that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring
the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State
Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when
it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality
that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able
to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep
in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded
when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against
Vladimir Putin?
Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago
I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing
from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by
supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos,
death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will
be killed.
The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign
a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well
as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept
to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."
Greenspan phony "Shocked disbelief" reminds classic "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling
going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart
& Claude Rains in Casablanca. Compare with "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest
of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked
disbelief," he said. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," ..."
"... Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. ..."
"... Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe: "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities. ..."
"... But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." ..."
"... The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar. ..."
"... There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. ..."
"... So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . . ..."
"... It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. ..."
"... If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly. ..."
"... it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. ..."
"... Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. ..."
"... Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse? ..."
"... Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway. ..."
"... Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues ..."
"... What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored? ..."
"... "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca ..."
by: Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future
On October 23, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before a House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee hearing on the role of federal regulators in the current financial
crisis.
It marks the end of an era. Alan Greenspan, the maestro, defender of the market fundamentalist faith,
champion of deregulation, celebrator of exotic banking inventions, admitted Thursday in a hearing
before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee and Oversight and Government Reform that he got it wrong.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders'
equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said.
As to the fantasy that banks could regulate themselves, that markets self-correct, that modern
risk management enforced prudence: "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer
of last year."
Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame
the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless
banks to do reckless things. Greenspan dismissed that goofiness in response to a question from
one of its right-wing purveyors, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., noting that subprime loans grew to a crisis
only as the unregulated shadow financial system securitized mortgages, marketed them across the world,
and pressured brokers to lower standards to generate a larger supply to meet the demand. Private
greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe:
"The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which
if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely
to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant
factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime
loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime
mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created
a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities.
But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default
swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain
a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations
were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would
any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."
Now hung over from their bender, the banks could be depended upon to remain sober "for the indefinite
future." Or until taxpayers' money relieves their headaches, and they are free to party once more.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO
THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE
NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED
AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING
PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH
THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.
Comments
This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.
Sun, 10/26/2008 - 23:37 - Captain America (not verified)
The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp
for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud
the American people from their hard earned dollar.
What they did dwarfs the damage caused to this country by 911, (no disrespect for the many
innocents who died). However, here, every single citizen is a victim of fraud and corruption on
a scale that was heretofore inconceivable. Greenspan, Bush and now Paulson have done more than
Bin Laden and his hordes could do in a 100 years.
By the way, if you protest YOU wind up locked up for being un-American. What happened America
?
There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. The game was always
fixed and Greenspan was the ultimate shill for the fixers. The past thirty years have been an orgy
of greed with common sense shoved aside for the sake of uncommon expediency. Americans became infatuated
by arcane formulas and dense incomprehensible mathematics to the point that they forget simple arithmetic.
America wake up it was only a dream, and a bad one at that.
It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's
sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies
of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism
are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily
and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. The truth is as plain as the
nose on your face: Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the investment banks, the Bush administration
and several members of Congress unobtrusively acted to consciously and knowingly to rob the national
treasury for the sake of capitalism's sacred cow: capital accumulation on behalf of the nation's
political and economic elite. If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism,
has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly.
We have heard statements like "the mathematical models used for knowing the behavior of derivatives
based on subprime mortgages were too difficult to understand", etc. But it doesn't take a
genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages),
that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies
knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the
CFTC. And this is why they turned a blind eye to many of the rating agencies giving many
of these instruments AAA ratings. I am sure that a real investigation will reveal numerous instances
of fraudulent activity in conjunction with this debacle. Those perpetrators must be identified
and brought to justice. While this will not fix our current problem, it hopefully should serve
as a deterrent to those who would in the future attempt to again engage in such activities.
Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:13 - Robert Iserbyt (not verified)
Well here you have it a confessional lie from the biggest fraud perpetrator in the history of
American finance Why the markets ever listened to this criminal in the first place is evidence
that our entire nation should be required to take a full year of real unfettered economics just
in case they don't understand what is going on now. All the pundits on MSNBC and all the talking
heads should be removed from the airwaves. The Bailout what will that do? the answer lies before
you.
Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation.
Come on, do you really think we are all so stupid to buy into the story that you couldn't predict
a melt down knowing that those writing the subprimes held no responsibility for their actions?
That's like giving a "get out of jail card" to someone who just created a felony! Did anybody
even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios --
just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury
and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse?
I'm a former real estate broker and my son is a mortgage broker. From about 2004 through the beginning
of this "greatest financial crisis since '29", we frequently talked on the phone about the disaster
which would ensue when the real estate value appreciation stopped, and people were no longer fueling
the economy with money borrowed against their equity, and the sub-prime loan fiasco would end.
We knew it would be disastrous, and both of us were astonished that neither the FED nor congress
was willing to say or do anything about it. Anyone who has witnessed over the years the cycle
of boom/bust/boom/bust in the real estate market knew that after eleven years of unprecedented
"boom" -- '96 through '2007 -- the "bust" would be like an earthquake. Paulson and Greenspan and
their ilk now denying that they suspected this is just is just their lying to protect the GOP
which was benefitting from the booming economy. They should both end up in prison, with all of
the GOP members of congress who have had their hands in the cash register.
Dance clown, dance. First you were against the FED until you became head of the FED. Then you
were for trickle down economics and letting the "system" regulate itself until you saw the inevitable
destruction it caused. Dance clown, dance. You should be the first one sent to prison under the
"Un-American activities act". The arrogance of your testimony before the committee was appalling.
You honestly couldn't believe you were wrong !!!
This is like telling the Fox to watch the Hens and then walking away and trusting him to do the
right thing. Government has to return to regulation and see that there is no hanky, Banky going
on anymore. Monopolies have to be busted up, like the Communication industry's, the Drug industries
and any other Corporations that control to much of the way the Country operates. No more Outsourcing
any Government duties.
Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality
get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald
Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues. We can
spend trillions on war and corporate bailouts, but we can't have a single payer health system?
We can't rebuild our infrastructure? Say it again- give me a break!
"...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here
are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca
"... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
"... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
"... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
"... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
"... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
"... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
"... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
"... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
"... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
"... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
"... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
"... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
"... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
"... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
"... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
"... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012),
The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The
Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally
published at
Alternet
Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into
oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian
life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS
holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley
crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists.
No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak.
Brutality is the mood.
What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative
outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's
image. In an
internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on
the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
... ... ..
Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador,
with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.
"Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly
incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."
"Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese
and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"
This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama
was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed
him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta
chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come
from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning
him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had
told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who
had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.
On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in
a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there
was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack
scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was
misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that
the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House
of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House
has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared
to ask the relevant questions.
Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki
and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly
low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla
of sentience on Obama's part.
Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture?
I doubt it.
I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed
down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't
wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with
which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.
If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days
after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived
benefits of a destroyed Syria.
> What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?
We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the
rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles
in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics
are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.
Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.
Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.
The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey,
and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported
by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that
this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines
of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin
production by the opposition.
1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that
the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.
2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents
in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".
This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US
and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and
that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples
from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort
to block the use of this to start a war
but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience
on Obama's part
+1
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still
standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback
has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring
our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely
NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.
Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is
largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from,
I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense
of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding
gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme
with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points
for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
I'd be interested in your views on this
Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that
the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government
used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters
of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil.
And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US
assertions that Assar was responsible.
In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was
not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin,"
as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.
But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional
wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had
backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.
After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.
MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August
2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….
She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become
one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.
The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end,
where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And
wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?
Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats
the same untruths.
Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State
Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's
a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans
work, writes Robert Parry.
A Family Business of Perpetual War
If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because
it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these
people push for war against Russia.
Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the
question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military
intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence
otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded,
even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved.
Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on
terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements
of the government establishment.
The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt
by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they
would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It
does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the
establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.
A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department
is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy
in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the
Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to
be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could
not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval.
I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers
was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.
"A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack
on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation
for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"
um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…
besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner,
i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's
reign of Empire…
pass the soma, please…
Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism?
These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.
But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these
positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and
I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends
and agendas…
Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity
and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking
Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…
It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the "
Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat
Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time
– not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy
to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against
the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern,
very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really
do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.
Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or
ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing
tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to
garner support for our noble casus belli.
Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic
claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think
tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money
from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading
for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi
going in luxury.
An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux
helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the
left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at
Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000
the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in
"the system?"
Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first
thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted
ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded
moves and dismissed it.
I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.
HRC is no Gandhi.
False flags
Circumventing laws
Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.
See also
Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads
there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates
the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience
in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area
expertise in the Middle East.
"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other
neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"
A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy.
But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners
in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky
appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?
Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation
with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO
which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.
Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window
on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for
"leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.
Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world
up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got
her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S.
Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So,
maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think
there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".
yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments
and upvotes flooded.
by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.
Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised"
that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?
Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these
51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require
their resignations.
Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby
for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent.
Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.
So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!!
Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity -
more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government
behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that.
We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.
My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any)
but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.
If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki,
under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition
- instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and
training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority)
that's not hard, and worked with them.
We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.
One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan.
These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they
can sneak past the TSA in airports.
However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to
be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network
around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note
that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running
terrorist training camps.
Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.
There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict
are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:
Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story
But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken
but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald
Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking
freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]
As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was
brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years
of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home
for neocons[…]
As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and
Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply
entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing
themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but
justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]
when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department
needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic
foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic
policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds
and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made
you sound soft.
Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills.
This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.
The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed,
exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.
All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent"
have come from the White House ?
Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out
HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb
crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?
Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick
used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick
came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent
employees of State Department. .
Notable quotes:
"... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
"... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
"... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
"... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
"... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
"... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
"... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
"... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
"... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
"... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
"... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
"... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
"... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
"... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
"... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
"... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
"... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
"... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
"... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
"... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
"... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
"... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
"... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
"... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
"... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
"... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
"... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
"... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
"... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
"... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
"... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
"... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
"... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
"... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
"... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
"... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
"... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
"... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
"... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
"... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
"... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
"... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
"... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
"... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
"... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
"... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
"... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
"... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
"... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
"... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
"... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
"... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
"... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
"... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
"... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical
of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military
strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations
of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.
Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates"
who on April 9
broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since
continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians
with improvised artillery.
Back to the piece:
The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official
, says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It
calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird
and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
...
The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who
have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad.
They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy
to the American ambassador in Damascus.
While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known
to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action
against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.
...
The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a
slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat
of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.
These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they
would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian
S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?
In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would
help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis
, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not
on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who
recently killed
50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate
Sunnis"?
These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously
failed in their duty:
"Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job
which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis
would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who
but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious
question.
The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as
the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:
[T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and
file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria
.
How is spending
over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government
consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?
It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very
beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to
deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".
All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S.
war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who
was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke
in support of such a crime.)
The U.S. military
continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what
follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State
Department.
Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now
seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under
Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping
to establish:
"Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to
change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting
anonymity so as to speak more freely.
"But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that
we're backing the same policy ," he said.
Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an
insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's
southeast for three decades.
The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian
government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the
Syrian army
advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian
army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The
Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also
sending peace signals towards Russia.
The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey
change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support
the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their
fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance
this Turkish change of mind.
The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares
for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.
This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to
conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around
China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run
by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.
SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..
"The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."
There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US
Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings,
and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.
The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent
Syrian Kurdistan.
The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of
the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff
bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and
completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons.
I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal
memo by mid-level bureaucrats.
The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the
Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning
up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any
REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs
and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys.
This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares
at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources,
as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and
the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke
or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA
The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance
to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan.
This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds.
The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'.
The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning
itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either
Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology,
but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD
is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual
or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.
The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the
independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth -
it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped
PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the
CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny
Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to
the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.
For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by
Kurdish media reports
, he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not
object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate
Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the
Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C'
Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not
follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would
be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government
on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).
Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return.
Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.
I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm
sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm
sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The
use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to
stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under
the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed
terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the
"moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like
the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.
"Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain,
and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying
the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in
as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting
on the side of the Syrian military.
"Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern
regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."
So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look
like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the
US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.
Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders
along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of
Syria.
Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria,
you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.
The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor
the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must
know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything,
promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.
As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is
a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the
American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about
zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all
mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's
getting ready to cash in his chips.
It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all
over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but
this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the
level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they
do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success
after each of their serial failures.
Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?
I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC
destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin,
Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or
the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at
the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con
plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over
for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have
had a big hand in it.
Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which
provides the basis for our strong belief
that the United States still has the military, economic,
and political power to play the leading role in pro
-tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime
change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions.
All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully,
Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in
Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of
terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent
and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad.
First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together.
An obvious nonsense.
And now this.
Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation
in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia,
while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.
Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed
ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,
There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:
STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around.
https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/
This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional
and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of
any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from
the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most
of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly
incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be
allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role.
They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and
propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology
of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration
of this ideology.
i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that
shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement
is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but
the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:
It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful
category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to
largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed
than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's
pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia
being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of
real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how
to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis
know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.
I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected
is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of
the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.
Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track
record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.
This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what
he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over
certain doom.
At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we
have...
This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo?
It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist.
The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy
corporate mouthpiece.
If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical.
Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources
to go on the record.
My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent.
Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms
who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.
Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.
1.
b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates"
who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.
This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure
about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire,
then they couldn't break it.
2.
The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest,
you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.
3.
I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone
needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.
4. We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied
up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in
behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other
what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans
are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.
Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning
and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our
anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning
for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers,
etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing
them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all
times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire
viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington,
DC.
CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering
the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded
flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army
so the article would go something like this :
In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against
Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos,
who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .
I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial,
and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent
or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing,
maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have
to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.
cant find any of the dissenting names.
like to know how many are jew if story not total fake
then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.
I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration
war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side
win."
Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a
Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.
Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement
with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.
This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran
just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria.
All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements
to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from
the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves.
Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the
definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the
Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products
swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained
on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to
deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).
Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar
( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean
thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to
another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with
these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists
in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered
him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably
wishful thinking tho.
Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't
call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in
the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly
another member of the chosen tribe.
Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity
essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors,
most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.
The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11.
Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.
This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying
all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being
hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.
Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.
There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming
that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention
in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but
I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).
Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and
hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might
the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some
version of
R2P
State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were
Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan.
The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department
is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion
page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of
Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate,
was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and
control.
There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling
errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?
In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure
...
KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month
assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the
Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.
And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S.
strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to
expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military
wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."
No respect for
R2P warriors
at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former
Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.
Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and
Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International
law. See George Bush and
Tony Blair
to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations,
etc, etc.
Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad,
Iraq.
If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has
clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal
must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.
For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia,
supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has
been made...
"Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism
on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear
factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear,
and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom
insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is
the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected
to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right
it is."
"The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research
the answers themselves. They are:
1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?
2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?
3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups
that were funding terrorism?"
"If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."
Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders
the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the
list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin
has terminated?
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo
calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's
government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's
no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release
the dissent letter.
Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in
the public domain.
By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed
masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential
even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article
that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism
of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying
or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing
it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article
on
the top of the front page .
Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing
today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge
in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad
The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical
of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.
Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting
viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria
in his final seven months in office.
One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive
action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention
that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."
It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots
down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous
it's bullshit.
The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid.
There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million
Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises,
rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.
Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic
across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem
migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential
partners are
Somalia ,
Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.
kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening
fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the
regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our
turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word
"cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and
co. belong in jail.
50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough
that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that
displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village
to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for
other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them
is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send
such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism
- a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.
Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact
that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully
behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay.
It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached
that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness
that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans
will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're
OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?
So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria
smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists,
at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because
her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics
wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State
Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain
silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done"
proceed?
The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's
part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over
the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light
as has been portrayed.
Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what
they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.
I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or
whatever their boilerplate.
Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through
'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary?
Seems no doubt here.
No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by
visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony.
Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits
of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.
"... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
"... Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't. ..."
"... Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo. ..."
"... However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud ..."
"... With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton. ..."
"... ike Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class. ..."
"... You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible? ..."
Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall
Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the
"get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. He is keen to
implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignity,
including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment.
His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the
1% gained at the expense of everyone else.
Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted
well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.
Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist
and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. He made promises to raise the minimum
wage that he failed to act on. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. His Department of
Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. He's routinely used the
Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. He'd regularly
concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to
get bills passed.
Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when
Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has
passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry
Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called
for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't.
He similarly could have passed real financial services industry reform and didn't. Dodd Frank
was weak tea and had many of its provisions kicked over for study and later rulemaking, which
was designed to let the industry have another go at watering it down. Danny Tarullo at the Fed
singlehandedly has been a more effective force for reform than the Obama Administration.
The Obama administration enabled the taking by bank servicer of millions of homes when investors
in those securitizations preferred modifications.
And please tell me what Obama has done in terms of improvements in consumer rights. The only
thing I can think of is the CFPB's proposed rulemaking on mandatory arbitration. The only reason
we got that is basically due to how Elizabeth Warren started up the CFPB, by creating a solid
culture that held up over time. And he gave her that job with the hope she'd screw it up, not
succeed. She had become a huge thorn in Timothy Geithner's side and they wanted to take her down
a peg. But that plan backfired.
We wrote at GREAT length at the time how the FCIC was designed to do a crappy job and it did.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan formed the Brady Commission to investigate the 1987 crash ten days
after it happened, had it staffed with serious people, not lightweights like Phil Angildes (well
meaning but out of his depth) and a subpoena process that guaranteed that no real investigation
could or would be done. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, a Bush holderover who represented a continuation
of the Greenspan policies that led to the crisis and bailed out the banks, imposed no executive
or board changes, and did not pump for reform. By contrast, the Bank of England was much tougher
with banks and fought tooth and nail for a Glass-Steagall type breakup of banks (it was stymied
by the UK Treasury and got a partial win).
Gay rights? You mean Obama's weak and late endorsement of gay marriage? That's not legal action.
And the ACA was not "reform" but a program for more rent extraction by pharma and insurers.
Did you manage to miss that the biggest groups funding the Obama campaign were the financial services
industry, tech, and the medical/industrial complex?
It strengthened the position of insurers, and allows for profit levels that were higher than
the industry enjoyed before the bill was passed. Obama never tried to sell single payer (in fact,
his operatives targeted groups that advocated it), and was never serious about a public option.
He took that off the table and got no concession from the other side. You never give a free concession
in bargaining, ever. He just didn't want people talking about it any more.
The ACA has harmed a lot of people. Everyone I know who has to get a policy under the ACA is
worse off. It is a nightmare for self employed people and people with erratic incomes. The only
real benefit has been Medicaid expansion. And the ACA is going into a death spiral anyhow.
You really need to get out and deal with facts, not Democratic party/Administration PR.
More generally, you are selling the line "Obama was constrained." Bollocks. Obama has governed
center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits.
They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what
he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to
do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration
of closing Gitmo.
The success of the Sanders campaign, despite the MSM efforts to first ignore it and then ridicule
it, shows how strong public support is for true progressive positions. If the Administration had
gone in that direction, it would have had public opinion behind it and the media would have fallen
in line.
Thank you for saying the obvious. And thank you for the Politico article which formulated my
view as well and I am easily in the 1%, white, over educated and travelled, male and in the sixth
decade. And I have mailed in my vote for Bernie. However in the cafeteria today one of the workers
was talking about how he thought Bernie would kill in in CA and I reminded him he needed to vote
since he was for him and his comment scared me…….He said he would vote for Bernie in the general
but that he was registered as an independent because he does not believe in any of the parties
and that he could not vote for Bernie……..but he said it did not matter…..unfortunately our precariate
is not necessarily fully aware of the hoops required to vote…..and I am certain he is not alone…..there
are many that want Bernie but just don't have it together to be able to vote for him.
Print this out and put it on the fridge, if you have a fridge.
(I'd also add that prosecuting banksters for accounting control fraud was under Obama's control
at Justice, and would have been wildly popular across the political spectrum. Instead we got "I
stand between you and the pitchforks."
Waldenpond
Your back on memeorandum….which is pro-Clinton, ignore/excoriate Sanders today (well, most
days)
I did not read any of them, just the highlight that pops up….
LGM… the people you know are 'dumb'
DeLong is sorry he ever linked to you….
Echidne of the Snakes… rotting, stinking something or other and your commenters are not representative
of the D party.
Steve in Dallas
Yikes… "Barack Obama, a transformational figure, has moved the US back to the left –
as much as possible"???
At 45yo in late 2007 I was a "political naif"… still trusting the mainstream media. However,
the Murdoch/FOX takeover of the WSJ pushed me to the internet… to follow the 'big crash'. Independent
media sites like NakedCapitalism were so obviously and infinitely better to anything in the MSM
I quickly was begging family/friends/everybody… "Please turn off the MSM. I learned more in one
month reading the IM than I learned reading the WSJ daily for 20 years! The MSM is total garbage
and totally corrupt"… BOYCOTT the MSM.
Regarding Obama? All through 2008 I followed the IM election coverage, listened to his and
Michael's campaign speeches. The message was clear… Obama was going to stop the out-of-control
criminal banksters and Wall Streeters… AND stop the crazed out-of-control war criminals… MUCH
more than Hillary! However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and
total fraud. He immediately surrounded himself with the exact same economic and war criminals
from the Clinton and Bush administrations. With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood
that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton.
Like Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the
world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order'
that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class.
1) You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't
see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible?
2) Even more audaciously disingenuous… "Clinton – pushed by progressive supporters – would
continue that transformation". Bill's a neolib and Hillary is not? How is that possible?
3) Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were all consistent at creating your list of problems… "social
justice issues, living wages, reversal of supply-side economic policy, protecting Social Security
and other government agencies from privatization, and ending the Citizens United campaign finance
regime… Supreme Court justice… Senate to provide its advice and consent"… and Hillary is here
to fix those problems?
4) To me your post sounds like just another TINA (there is no alternative) threat from the
5% telling the working class 95% slobs to back down and just take what they're given.
I'm totally 100% with Yves' description of NC readers… NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY.
"... He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense
of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services,
and the environment. ..."
"... His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the
1% gained at the expense of everyone else. ..."
"... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist
and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
"... He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. ..."
"... His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. ..."
"... His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. ..."
"... He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern
center-right. ..."
"... He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move
further right to get bills passed. ..."
Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall
Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the
"get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.
He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense
of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial
services, and the environment.
His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where
the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.
Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted
well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.
Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry
lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers.
He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on.
His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best.
His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime.
He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to
govern center-right.
He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd
move further right to get bills passed.
The location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can help even low-tech stalkers find you,
researchers found.
The notion of online privacy has been greatly diminished in recent years, and just this week two
new studies confirm what to many minds is already a dismal picture.
First, a study
reported on Monday by Stanford University found that smartphone metadata-information about calls
and text messages, such as time and length-can reveal a surprising amount of personal detail.
To investigate their topic, the researchers built an Android app and used it to retrieve the metadata
about previous calls and text messages-the numbers, times, and lengths of communications-from more
than 800 volunteers' smartphone logs. In total, participants provided records of more than 250,000
calls and 1.2 million texts.
The researchers then used a combination of automated and manual processes to understand just what's
being revealed. What they found was that it's possible to infer a lot more than you might think.
A person who places multiple calls to a cardiologist, a local drug store, and a cardiac arrhythmia
monitoring device hotline likely suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, for example. Based on frequent
calls to a local firearms dealer that prominently advertises AR semiautomatic rifles and to the customer
support hotline of a major manufacturer that produces them, it's logical to conclude that another
likely owns such a weapon.
The researchers set out to fill what they consider knowledge gaps within the National Security
Agency's current phone metadata program. Currently, U.S. law gives more privacy protections to call
content and makes it easier for government agencies to obtain metadata, in part because policymakers
assume that it shouldn't be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata
alone.
This study, reported in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests otherwise. Preliminary versions of the work have already
played a role in federal surveillance policy debates and have been cited in litigation filings and
letters to legislators in both the U.S. and abroad.
It takes as few as eight tweets to locate someone
Researchers at MIT and Oxford University, meanwhile, have
shown that the
location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can be enough to let even a low-tech snooper find
out where you live and work.
Though Twitter's location-reporting service is off by default, many Twitter users choose
to activate it. Now, it looks like even as few as eight tweets over the course of a single
day can give stalkers what they need to track you down.
The researchers used real tweets from Twitter users in the Boston area; users consented to the
use of their data and also confirmed their home and work addresses, their commuting routes, and the
locations of various leisure destinations from which they had tweeted.
The time and location data associated with the tweets were then presented to a group of 45 study
participants, who were asked to try to deduce whether the tweets had originated at the Twitter users'
homes, workplaces, leisure destinations or commute locations.
Bottom line: They had little trouble figuring it out. Equipped with map-based representations,
participants correctly identified Twitter users' homes roughly 65 percent of the time and their workplaces
at closer to 70 percent.
Part of a more general project at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative, the
paper was presented last
week at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
"Many people have this idea that only machine-learning techniques can discover interesting patterns
in location data, and they feel secure that not everyone has the technical knowledge to do that,"
said Ilaria Liccardi, a research scientist at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative and first
author on the paper. "What we wanted to show is that when you send location data as a secondary piece
of information, it is extremely simple for people with very little technical knowledge to find out
where you work or live."
Twitter said it does not comment on third-party research, but directed users to
online information about its optional location
feature.
Ambrose Bierce lost much public cachet when he predicted(?) McKinley would meet with a bullet,
as some believed his words were assumed as justification by the assassin.
From his "Devil's Dictionary":
WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period
of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected
may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. "In time of peace prepare for war" has a deeper
meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end-that
change is the one immutable and eternal law-but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the
seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had
decreed his "stately pleasure dome"-when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in
Xanadu- that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.
One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing
that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of "hands across the sea," and a little
more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief
in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.
His entry just previous to this is for:
WALL STREET, n. A symbol of sin for every devil to rebuke. That Wall Street is a den of thieves
is a belief that serves every unsuccessful thief in place of a hope in Heaven...
I have a copy of his book "Tales of Soldiers and Civilians"; it's like reading a depressive version
of Edgar Allen Poe, all foreboding and involving some supernatural force. Perhaps that's all he could
find to explain the madness of the Civil War.
Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although
this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy
this nice country.
Notable quotes:
"... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
"... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
"... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
"... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
"... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
"... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
"... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
"... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
"... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
"... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
"... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
"... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
"... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
"... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
"... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve
some space for silence
... ... ...
The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call
for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz),
for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump
again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased
a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic
nominee includes
"the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports
"intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many
enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures
of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks
last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed
to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah,
Mosul, and other Isis strongholds.
"I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there,"
opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start
a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".
... ... ...
"A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy
of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of
who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and
Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and
when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness
wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and
melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely
hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the
eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow
rookies come across a group of Union dead:
How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered
by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We
were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.
... ... ...
Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic
turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as
well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves
– amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls.
Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on
its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to
read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was
the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the
first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's
in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple
with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the
second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.
It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or
entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any
immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they
would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't
make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it
was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening
and dumbing down.
.... ... ...
...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people
– old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their
youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class
– across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the
grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless
War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic
experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.
Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know
anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that
1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved.
For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits),
and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing,
the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion.
But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding
scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home.
Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts,
8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing.
If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose
it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's
truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what
we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale
mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.
Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years
the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly
higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast
majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having
loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln
himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of
the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another
major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native
insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the
trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured
of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary
of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable
homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk
Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come",
and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The
sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal
lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era
were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train
ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.
He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable
mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends
betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold,
critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older
son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part,
Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious
50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington
DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's
revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields
of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's
Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed
from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling
novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory
Peck.
Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:
It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long
fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers,
who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves;
that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.
About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable
but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for
the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving
dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with
televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how
much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and
titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff,
as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:
There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places
had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the
places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor,
courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the
names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the
US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America
wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes
this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of
constant war. This is a stupid idea.
Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good
at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is.
Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption
seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.
Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.
charlieblue
Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how
many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and
imagine it is a partisan screed.
It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in
every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our
Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people
who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage
and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician
calling for more of those deaths.
"Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil
liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the
government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be
considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
Dubikau
A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.
Bellanova Nova
Excellent article.
We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu
Philip Lundt
As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"
A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.
And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?
villas1
Bravo. War is a racket.
olman132 -> villas1
As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
Jim Given
When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
Mshand
Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
USApatriot12
Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.
talenttruth
For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear /
Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to
"get us."
Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or
who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire
world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are
conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army
against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped
perspective.
Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our
militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7
fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that.
For five seconds.
In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the
incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial
complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his
warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or
more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).
Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal
War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all
news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled
that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics.
Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.
bullypulpit
In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is
strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear
the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders,
clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the
blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to
fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential
example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language
stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.
Tom Farkas
Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to
this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager.
The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante
with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from
being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his
best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of
Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for
nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger
on it. Thanks for this article.
talenttruth -> Tom Farkas
Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally
"allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order
to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked
(ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how
America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."
My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the
super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.
Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here,
in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete)
to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization,"
but ours is crooked.
So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their
insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed
veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."
On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for
America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the
top.
Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.
Barclay Reynolds
When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a
combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run
by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every
penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know
true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected
officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works
out.
Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds
Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.
SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds
I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me
angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are
determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of
some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever.
Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans
and flag waving.
Tom Wessel
"Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "
How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did
you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.
gwpriester
The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
AllenPitt
"So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."
EXACTLY!
OZGODRK
It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and
confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly
advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary
Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame
Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All
chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all
white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.
So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course,
then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.
MOZGODRK -> arrggh
But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is
advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.
On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are
all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not
experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.
caravanserai
John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great
book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has
developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western
Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe
Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany
dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire
as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won,
the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check
Soviet expansion.
Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are
taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that
"idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the
tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and
according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less
certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is
still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually
prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely
different.
Rescue caravanserai
Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton.
Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
Falanx
I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
DanInTheDesert
Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]
Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.
PrinceVlad
Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the
reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.
Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad
"Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the
Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras
I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over
every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary.
The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.
[*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?
Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full
here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission
it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the
source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales
passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."
Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate
for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons',
as criminal investigations are still under way."
Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted
what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes
and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did
not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or
any other media."
The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest.
Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and
Huntsdale were provided with the
story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility
that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available.
But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as
saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.
The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it
appeared originally, on
May 17 .
Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence,
and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale:
"The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the
deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing
an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations)
and forensic pathology reports."
One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested
in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was
publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew
Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of
the passengers and crew was inconclusive.
Donoghoe also said : "it was also
necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type
of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated
the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB
report."
By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes
has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile
at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB
report they relied on for this conclusion.
Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it
here .
The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman,
"the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video
because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."
Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked,
and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary
material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."
The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB
chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.
The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting
MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to
July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring
the risks and flying through the conflict zone.
On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and
stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib
Razak
announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.
"'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost
my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on
his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice
for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement
that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by
the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient
in facing the challenges,' said Najib."
According to a
spokesman
for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be
no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis ,
May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…
I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not
reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his
next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment
was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.
Peruse, if you will,
this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that
the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction
that a new western strategy is
the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's
squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep,
it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear
war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt
to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?
We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack
like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that
fabricated a case for
war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people,
prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes
any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's
quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that
this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it
is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms
– Hill & Knowlton – coached
the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe
Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something
which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger
and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated
scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous
assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the
United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens
in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why,
it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes
so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.
What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite
the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional
nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without
success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's
kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's
homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has
tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for
President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions
made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia
began to
muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country.
It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has
failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.
And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based
missile defense system
has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense
the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site
in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that
the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose
could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty
clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike
capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's
ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided
Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?
If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad
deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg;
mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability,
so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based
missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines.
The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads
of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is
already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally,
Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed
fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.
... ... ...
This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and
the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even
if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend
to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know
this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going
to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem
is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring
to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.
The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were
in 1947.
Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving
to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons
you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit
to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume
that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.
We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent
scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist
indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output
(don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician
reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet
missiles.
So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned
is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially
saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival
of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their
economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken
belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the
danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.
One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around
enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in
the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough
for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)
Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a
nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a
tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its
economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian
Union proceeds.
…everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
####
John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!
It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to
naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as
noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.
"... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
"... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
"CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme
to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description
of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved
everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment
to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this
sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:
The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The
first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet
that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet
and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension.
The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to
making everybody look like us.
... ... ...
Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia
and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake
of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting
destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of
vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."
"... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON
CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710
An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead
in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia
Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid
journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been
shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding
warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the
inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….
(a) prevent the investigation from widening
beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and
(b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.
What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia,
but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of
the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding
stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
Alleged peace-maker John Kerry threatened to wage war-without-end
on Syria - if the Middle East country does accept the US demand for regime change.
That's hardly the language of a supposed bona fide diplomat who presents an image to the world as
a politician concerned to bring about an end to the
five-year Syrian conflict.
The US Secretary of State repeatedly sounds anxious to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Syrian
nation, where over the past five years some 400,000 people have been killed and millions displaced
as refugees.
Anyone who has not been brainwashed by Western media propaganda knows full well that the suffering
of Syria has been caused by Washington and its allies sponsoring a covert war for regime change in
that country.
Kerry was speaking during another round of failed negotiations - this time in Vienna - along with
other leaders from the 17-nation International Syria Support Group that includes Russia, as well
as the United Nations.
The "support group" is a disgustingly erroneous name, given that certain
members of this entity - primarily the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - have done everything in their
power to sponsor a proxy terrorist war on Syria. If the truth were not so abject, it would be laughable.
In a Voice of America
report headlined "US still has leverage in Syria," Kerry is quoted thus: "He said the greatest
leverage [on Syria] was the fact that [President] Assad and his backers would never be able to end
the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."
In Kerry's Footsteps: What Saudi 'Plan B' Actually Means for Syria and Iran Consider the pernicious
import of that for a moment. In other words, America's top "diplomat" is laying down a criminal ultimatum
to the sovereign state of Syria and its elected government of President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry is
saying in no uncertain terms that unless the Syrian authorities do not accept Washington's demand
for regime change, then the country is facing never-ending war.
Of course, being a weasel-worded diplomat, Kerry does not use the illegal term "regime change".
He instead talks about "political transition". And he has set a date in August for this "transition"
to take place. But what Kerry's euphemistic jargon boils down to is this: the Syrian president and
his administration must vacate government - or else face more violence and destruction.
This is the political objective that Washington and its allies in NATO, Saudi Arabia and Turkey
have wanted all along. They want what is an independent, anti-imperialist Syrian government to give
way to some composite regime that would be a puppet for Washington's geopolitical interests in the
oil-rich, strategically vital Middle East region.
Any replacement regime would spurn its erstwhile allies of Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah
resistance movement to become an American vassal.
In reality, the supposed pro-democracy change that Washington allegedly
wants to install in Syria would be dominated by a repressive, fundamentalist regime that would betray
the interests of the Syrian people. We can count on this outcome because the proxies who are waging
Washington's covert war are dominated by extremists fully aligned with their despotic sponsors in
Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Kerry's apparent confidence in predicting that Syria faces a war of attrition if it does capitulate
is a tacit admission by Washington that it controls the illegally armed factions in Syria.
The United States may officially proscribe terror groups like al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra
and the so-called Islamic State (also known as Daesh). The US pays lip service to "defeating terrorism".
But anyone with an informed understanding of what is really happening in
Syria and other countries subjected to US-led regime change knows that Washington has orchestrated
these same terror groups for its criminal political objectives.
This is corroborated by the fact that Washington refuses to coordinate its (ineffectual) bombing
campaign with Russia to eliminate the terror groups. It is corroborated by the fact that Washington
and its allies point-blank refuse Russia's proposals at the UN Security Council to designate other
known terror outfits - Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams - as terrorist.
Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams are every bit as vile and barbaric as the other al Qaeda-affiliated
franchises. They all espouse the same twisted death-cult ideology; fight alongside each others (when
they are not feuding, that is, over war spoils); and ultimately they all share the same sponsors
and American-supplied weaponry.
'Fair Game'? What Kerry's 'Absolute Lines' in Syria Really Mean It is openly admitted that America's
allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Qatar, bankroll Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams and
that this nexus serves as a conduit for American weapons from the Central Intelligence Agency.
Why else would John Kerry
begin his week of "diplomacy" in Vienna by first making an urgent visit to Saudi King Salman last
weekend. Kerry was reportedly appealing to the 9/11-sponsoring Saudi regime to support his diplomatic
push in Vienna. The Western media "reported" Kerry's Saudi visit as if it were a benign mission,
as they usually do. Whenever it should be obvious that what he was really doing was trying to get
the Saudis to ease off on the terror war in Syria.
Washington is currently trying to wrangle regime change in Syria through a political track. That
is a world of difference from gullible Western media projections of Kerry's pretensions of "negotiating
peace".
Yet all the while the US and the Saudis are reserving the right to use "Plan B" if the political
track should not materialize in regime change.
That is what Kerry really means when he said in Vienna that "Assad and his
backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."
Washington's "leverage" in Syria is due to the simple, diabolical fact that it and its despotic
allies ultimately can turn on and off the violence when it is expedient for their interests. And
that violence relies on the deployment of known terrorist organizations, including the ones that
Washington's double-think refuses to recognize as "terrorist".
So let's put this into stark perspective. Despite his Orwellian title of diplomat and peace-maker,
US Secretary of State John Kerry is the public face of a terrorist enterprise.
What other world power gives itself the right to threaten nations with "regime
change or war"? And yet this same nation considers itself a paragon of democracy, human rights and
law-abiding probity.
The United States of America is a rogue regime on a criminal scale that exceeds the very worst
in history.
As a parting footnote, John Kerry is a decorated American "war hero". He served four months as
a navy officer during the US genocidal war on Vietnam during the late 1960s. Kerry received a bunch
of medals for his "actions", which according to reliable accounts from veterans on his river-boat
patrols, involved shooting fleeing Vietnamese peasants in the back.
This is the same Kerry who is now purporting to bring peace to Syria.
Like everything that Washington says, it is full of lies and deception. The abiding lesson: don't
turn your back on Washington and its terrorist-sponsoring, war-mongering "diplomats".
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect
the official position of Sputnik.
За последний месяц на Украине появилось новое
правительство во главе с Владимиром Гройсманом, была переформатирована
коалиция в Верховной Раде и назначен новый генпрокурор. Бывший депутат Рады,
а потом спикер парламента Новороссии Олег Царев рассказал "Ленте.ру" о том,
чего ждать от обновленной украинской власти.
"Порошенко дожал американцев и олигархов"
"Лента.ру": Что изменится на Украине с назначением
нового правительства Владимира Гройсмана? Можно ли ожидать улучшения
социально-экономической ситуации?
Царев:
Главным итогом последнего политического кризиса я считаю
то, что Петру Порошенко удалось сосредоточить в своих руках всю полноту
власти. На пути к этому он смог дожать американцев, олигархов, продавить
оппонентов внутри страны. Финальным аккордом стало избрание 12 мая
генпрокурором Украины кума президента Юрия Луценко. Порошенко получил полный
карт-бланш, установил контроль и над кабинетом министров, и над Верховной
Радой, и над силовыми структурами. Оппоненты Порошенко - [Игорь] Коломойский
и [Арсений] Яценюк - пытались ему противостоять. В частности, с их
противодействием я связываю активную раскрутку на Украине скандала с
панамскими офшорами президента. Вся эта кампания неслучайно началась в тот
момент, когда глава государства поехал на переговоры в США. Целью было его
ослабление, чтобы он не смог договориться с американцами. Тем не менее он
американцев дожал и своего добился. Основным аргументом для расширения его
полномочий было устранение угрозы сползания страны к анархии. Да, это
движение в сторону диктатуры, но американцы никогда не возражали против
диктатуры, если она действует в их интересах.
А что этот личный успех Порошенко значит для украинского
народа?
К интересам украинского народа вся эта политическая борьба не имеет
никакого отношения. Речь идет о контроле финансовых потоков, в частности
крупные игроки готовятся к намечающейся последней приватизации. Одно из
последствий украинского переворота и, как следствие, гражданской войны в
Донбассе и разрыва экономических связей с Россией - обесценивание активов у
олигархов. На сегодняшний день их активы, заложенные под взятые в зарубежных
банках кредиты, меньше самих кредитов. Фактически они банкроты. Спасти
олигархов может только срочная покупка по заниженным ценам новых активов,
чтобы получить за рубежом под них новые кредиты и за их счет перекрыть
старые. В продажу должны пойти порты, железная дорога, АЭС,
сельскохозяйственные угодья. Как вы понимаете, мировая банковская система
устроена так, что в конечном итоге вся украинская собственность должна
поменять владельцев с украинских на зарубежных.
Этот процесс уже начался?
Первоначально договоренности у олигархов имелись с уже бывшим премьером
Яценюком. Активы были распределены. Например, Коломойский должен был забрать
Одесский припортовый завод, еще ряд предприятий. Яценюк их устраивал, его
аппетиты были поменьше, чем у президента, поэтому олигархи поддерживали
главу правительства в борьбе против Порошенко. Все СМИ Коломойского активно
раздували панамский скандал, работа велась по всему миру, оплачивалась
международная пиар-кампания. Но Порошенко выдержал, договорился с
американцами, а у тех есть рычаги давления на украинских олигархов, хранящих
свои средства в странах Запада. Теперь все олигархи пришли договариваться к
Порошенко. Коломойский и другие контролируют своих депутатов, дают им
указания. Благодаря этому президенту удалось сделать премьер-министром лично
преданного ему Гройсмана и назначить генпрокурором Луценко.
"У каждого украинского политика есть куратор в США"
Какие перспективы у такой конфигурации власти?
На сегодняшний момент американцы против резких изменений. Такова логика
президентских выборов в США - уходящий президент не должен оставлять
проблемы следующему главе государства. Поэтому сейчас Россию будут
похлопывать по плечу, говорить о возможной отмене санкций, может быть, даже
откатится цена на нефть. Но это временная ситуация! У администрации нового
американского президента будет свой план по Украине. Москва получила
временную передышку, важно использовать это короткое время для решения
внутренних проблем, наведения порядка в экономике.
На Украине по-прежнему периодически заявляют о себе
радикальные националисты, экстремисты. Почему Запад не выступает против
этого?
Тут ситуация двойственная. С одной стороны, Порошенко для того и дали
возможность сосредоточить власть в своих руках, чтобы он укрепил
государство. Он от нацистов потихоньку уже избавляется, но полностью убирать
их со сцены не будет. Отморозков под рукой иметь удобно. Надо разобраться с
"Оппозиционным блоком" или Васей Волгой (лидер партии "Союз левых сил" -
"прим. "Ленты.ру"
), другими какими-то оппонентами? И типа возмущенная
общественность делает это. Президент разводит руками: "Что я могу? Это не я,
это другие люди". Радикалы полностью не исчезнут, но будут работать по
команде, в строго очерченных границах выполняя ту роль, которую выполняли
батальоны смерти в Латинской Америке.
Отношение к России будет меняться?
Никаких надежд на это питать не стоит - Украина останется русофобской по
духу. Просто русофобия будет не самодеятельной, а санкционированной,
управляемой государством. России и украинцам с отличной от официальной
точкой зрения лучше не станет.
Активно проявляет себя в украинском политическом
пространстве Михаил Саакашвили. Понятно, что у него огромные амбиции,
ограничиваться Одесской областью он не желает. Каковы его перспективы?
У него хорошие шансы войти в высшие эшелоны украинской власти. У
Саакашвили второй личный рейтинг после Юлии Тимошенко. Надо понимать, что у
каждого более-менее серьезного украинского политика сейчас есть свой
американский куратор. Кто-то работает с демократами, кто-то - с
консерваторами, кто-то связан с Госдепартаментом, другие взаимодействуют с
конкретным чиновником, у кого-то "крыша" ЦРУ, как, например, у Наливайченко
(бывший глава СБУ -
прим. "Ленты.ру"
). При этом между самими
кураторами идет серьезная борьба. Из-за этого возникают различные казусы.
Так, куратор бывшего министра финансов Украины Натальи Яресько сообщила ей,
что ее кандидатура утверждена на должность главы правительства. Та стала уже
делать какие-то высокомерные заявления, но в итоге в правительстве Гройсмана
не сохранила даже должность главы Минфина. Проблема Саакашвили связана с
тем, что его кураторы в США сегодня не на вершине власти. Вторая трудность -
отсутствие у него своей политической силы. Ему надо свой рейтинг как-то
конвертировать в движение, чтобы закрепиться внутри Украины.
Юлия Тимошенко сможет вернуться во власть?
У нее не только высокий рейтинг, но есть и собственная политическая сила
- партия "Батькивщина". Да, в Раде это всего 25 депутатов, поэтому она и не
претендует на какие-то серьезные посты. Я знаю, что ей при формировании
правительства Гройсмана предлагали войти в кабмин. Но она посчитала, что ей
лучше еще нарастить рейтинг, находясь в оппозиции.
"Боевые действия в Донбассе продолжатся"
Что в ближайшее время ждет Донбасс? И какова судьба
минских соглашений?
По сути, жители Донбасса - заложники неопределенности, вызванной минскими
соглашениями. Меня совсем не удивило отсутствие результатов на последней
встрече министров иностранных дел нормандской четверки. Для украинской
власти вопросом жизни и смерти в полном смысле этого слова является
непризнание вооруженного конфликта на востоке страны гражданской войной.
Если война в Донбассе - не война с Россией, а внутренний гражданский
конфликт, то начало АТО, привлечение армии, насильная мобилизация, обстрелы
городов Донбасса - это не только грубое нарушение Конституции Украины, но и
преступление, по которому нет сроков давности. Руководители страны - военные
преступники. Все погибшие в результате конфликта, как военные так и мирные
жители, на их совести. Представители киевской власти как попугаи будут
говорить об агрессии России на востоке Украины. То, что они сами себе
противоречат, их не сильно волнует. Если Россия агрессор, то надо разрывать
дипломатические отношения и объявлять войну России. Причем логичнее всего
начинать "освобождение от России" с Крыма. Ведь то, что в Крыму, в отличие
от Донбасса, находится российская армия, ни для кого не секрет. Но дураков
нет. Одно дело воевать в Донбассе с выдуманными российскими войсками, а
совсем другое - столкнуться с настоящей кадровой российской армией в Крыму.
С соглашениями тупиковая ситуация?
То, что подписи под минскими соглашениями поставили представители
самопровозглашенных народных республик, и так поставило Киев в сложное
положение. Если договоренности будут выполнены, то дело Киеву придется иметь
уже с легитимными представителями Донбасса. (Лично я считаю, что у глав ДНР
Александра Захарченко и ЛНР Игоря Плотницкого легитимности больше, чем у
Порошенко). Это значит, что в случае конфликта он попадает под определение
"гражданская война", а действия киевского руководства можно трактовать как
военное преступление. Таким образом, при выполнении минских соглашений Киев
окажется в шпагате.
Фашистские режимы держатся на страхе, они устойчивы, если существует
только одна точка зрения. А не разделяющих ее государство или батальоны
смерти устраняют. Неподконтрольный центральной власти анклав на востоке
нельзя физически раздавить, и это делает режим очень неустойчивым. С другой
стороны, минский комплекс мер продавливают европейцы и публично отказываться
от него нельзя. Но и выполнить невозможно. Все это прекрасно понимают как в
Киеве, так и в Вашингтоне. Если бы американцы действительно хотели
выполнения соглашений, то Виктория Нуланд сегодня бы сидела в Киеве и
разговаривала с депутатами, руководителями фракций и олигархами в жесткой
форме. Аргументов много: угроза запрета въезда в ЕС, закрытие кредитования в
зарубежных банках, конфискация собственности и арест счетов за границей
Государственные СМИ и СМИ, подчиняющиеся олигархам, с утра и до вечера, в
случае если бы действительно ставилась такая задача, говорили о том что,
минские договоренности надо выполнять. Но мы этого не наблюдаем.
Мое резюме такое: Украина и США как минимум до президентских выборов в
Америке сохранят риторику о том, что минские соглашения следует выполнять.
Но в то же время выполнять их, голосуя в Верховной Раде за амнистию,
специальный статус отдельных районов, изменения в Конституцию, закон о
выборах в Донбассе, не будут. Организовывать крупномасштабное наступление
тоже не будут, дабы не нарваться на контрнаступление. Но боевые действия в
ограниченном режиме на границе с Донбассом, очевидно, продолжатся по той
причине, что первый пункт соглашений - прекращение огня. Невыполнение
первого пункта дает возможность затягивать и с другими.
Какие-то поводы для оптимизма вы все-таки видите?
Медленно, шаг за шагом, но в Донбассе все-таки становится спокойнее, а
уровень жизни немного растет. Я как один из тех, кто стоял в начале этого
процесса, хотел бы большего. Поэтому я, возможно, слишком резко оцениваю
ситуацию, хотя сделано, конечно, очень много.
"Я не общаюсь с Януковичем"
Есть регионы Украины, которые готовы пойти по пути ДНР и
ЛНР?
За время правления Порошенко украинские силовики провели точечную, но
системную работу по выявлению недовольных киевской властью. Одни попали в
тюрьму, другие покинули Украину. Движение сопротивления во многом подавлено.
Общее недовольство теми, кто пришел к власти после госпереворота в 2014 году,
есть, уровень жизни падает, тарифы растут, социально-экономическая ситуация
ухудшается. Но отсутствуют лидеры, способные повести за собой людей.
Вы общаетесь с кем-то из прежнего руководства Украины?
Может быть, обсуждаете что-то с беглым президентом Виктором Януковичем?
Я с глубоким уважением отношусь к бывшему главе правительства Николаю
Азарову. С ним мы обсуждаем много вопросов. С Януковичем не общаюсь. Знаете,
после госпереворота в Киеве погибло громадное количество людей, Донбасс стал
зоной боевых действий. Через возглавляемый мной парламент Новороссии шла
первая российская гуманитарная помощь, другой структуры для такой работы
просто не было. Я по пять-шесть раз в день посещал пострадавшие семьи в
Луганске, Донецке. Мне важно было показать людям, что их не бросили. Я
приезжал в семьи, где погибли дети, старики, где разрушены дома. Я видел это
горе, которое принесла, в том числе, политика Януковича. Это очень тяжело.
Вы считаете, что лично Янукович виноват в происходящем
на Украине сейчас?
У него были все рычаги власти. Он мог бороться как Каддафи, как сирийский
лидер Башар Асад, он мог погибнуть, как Альенде (Сальвадор Альенде,
президент Чили, погиб в 1973 году в ходе военного переворота -
прим. "Ленты.ру"
),
и остаться символом сопротивления в веках, но он этого не сделал. Политик не
имеет права думать о себе.
И что же, не было тогда людей, близких к "телу", которые
могли оказать на него какое-то влияние, чтобы он принял другое решение? Или
он никого не слушал?
Украина - олигархическая страна, причем классическая олигархическая
страна. Можно много говорить про демократические выборы, но в итоге
украинский народ выбирает того кандидата, которого выбрали олигархи. Ну, как
минимум из перечня тех, на кого они сделали ставку. Поэтому его
обязательства перед ними были важнее, чем перед простыми людьми.
А олигархам, выходит, невыгодно было сохранить страну?
В какой-то момент олигархов взяли за самое дорогое, что у них есть, - за
деньги и за собственность. Вариантов не было.
Construction work is starting on a new pipeline project bringing Azeri gas through northern
Greece and Albania to Italy, reducing Europe's energy dependency on Russia.
The Trans Adriatic Pipeline will run for 878 kilometers (550 miles), from Greece's border with
Turkey to southern Italy, and includes a 105-kilometer (65-mile) stretch under the Adriatic Sea.
First deliveries to Europe are expected in 2020.
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said the project would create 8,000 jobs in his financially
struggling country, which has more than 24 percent unemployment.
He spoke at a ceremony Tuesday to mark the beginning of the pipeline's construction in the
northern port city of Thessaloniki.
TAP is a joint project by Britain's BP, Azerbaijan's SOCAR, Italy's Snam, Belgium's Fluxys,
Spain's Enagas and Swiss Axpo.
"... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
"... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a
state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote?
Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about
Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to
Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will
just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are
hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to
swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want.
Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now,
as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know
who he was, she could well be behind.
It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore
Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would
do.
Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over
excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost
no votes counted, with their ridiculous little
Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to
wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality,
Sanders and done it again.
The Fat Lady is starting to
get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.
Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that
they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC
and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed
out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly
embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's
lost on you.)
Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people
just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a
Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many
Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even
vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many
things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic
establishment is afraid of both.
Guardian: I'm getting tired of
waiting for a fair headline
from you, for example, "Bernie
Takes West Virginia in May
10th state primary" instead of
"Trump this, Trump
that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah,
blah". It's as simple as Who,
What, When, Where &
Why-accurately reported. As
taught in 9th grade journalism
classes.
Im waiting for an article
without the negatives such as
West Virginians only voted for
Sanders because they are
waiting to vote for Trump.
It's bad enough to have
Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros.,
the banksters, the Supreme
Court et al subverting our
democracy, must you join in as
well?
Bernie's formidable & we, his
supporters are tenacious!
GO BERNIE!!!!
Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller
demographic group by giving them someone to blame and
displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated
establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one
exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less
concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned
with the Independent voting block who have massive
concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this
allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the
Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do
anything to get what she wants.
The point is that while Sanders gets support from people
to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support
from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing
him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about
the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate
interests in government, and has self funded his campaign
as a result, team up with a person who is the living
embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign
is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI
investigation thrown in for good measure.
He says it was a disaster, is against regime change,
questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be
neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and
questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union
collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then
I'm voting Trump.
The problem is corruption in
government, and how the government and economy are
rigged.
Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton...
with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall
Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part
of the problem, and certainly not the solution.
Once again we have uniformly
lousy, almost criminally
responsibly terrible political
reporting from the Guardian
concerning the Democratic
Party's race. I come expecting
you to be awful and you never
disappoint. You know nothing,
you understand nothing.
Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that
Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you
consider certain studies...
TPC found that the average tax burden would
increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average
amount of benefits would increase by more than
$13,000. As a result, households would on average
receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under
Sanders's proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would
on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000,
and those in the middle fifth of income would have an
average gain of about $8,500.
Those in the top 5
percent of income would see a net loss of about
$111,000, TPC said.
Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most
progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the
average American's pocket
She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer
anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all.
For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in
significant numbers.
I would refrain from too many
predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country
with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of
reference for what's going to come next. Except that
we're in for a wild ride.
to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement
& controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him
to win
Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star
interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who
was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win
in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the
Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly
lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course
don't mean anything.
Because of the large number of
comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line
we will be closing this blog shortly.
You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted
personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing
tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the
Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone
who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as
her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship
with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.
Except
for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a
"socialist" there is not much else he has in common with
Lenin.
Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's
super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate
these people rationally, they are paid to distort and
reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's
almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up.
This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy.
It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want
more
liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell
according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".
My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by
a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who
have some form of personality disorder which
means that they are only interested in
unending self-enrichment beyond any from of
rational limit, all at the expense of
*everybody else* on the planet
The article
rather backs this up, and furthermore points
out that at least some of these same people
were also backing the frightful Cruz until he
dropped out of the race
Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary
now you have this information?
Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and
the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one
(?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had
one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first
lady.
The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump
him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking
down the road already
If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of
your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the
lines.....................
True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not
willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving,
email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign
platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It
beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton-
expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle
East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
Yes Clinton is
cleverly using a
LEGAL way to
bypass campaign
financing laws
thanks to her
joint account with
the DNC.
Although, to be
fair, she is not
the first
candidate to do
that.
The legality is
not for debate
here but I won't
say that much
about the
morality...
She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.
That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.
"But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an
opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."
Exactly! The
Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse
than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just
plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to
work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the
US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour
predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's
just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II
twice! Well...once, really.
Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker,
has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the
mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.
The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of
Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound,
has donated
$13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race,
Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than
$2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has
donated more than $7m to Clinton.
The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of
Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of
them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they
won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win
the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they
aren't doing that.
Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go
together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You
should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West
Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an
anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.
Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give
good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed
coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.
Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks
about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious
you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased
voters make up their minds.
Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you
mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure
he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and
policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?
Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to
win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of
becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you
investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them
when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding
their speeches.
Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more
taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should
know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self
cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal
was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media,
unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its
readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart
young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are
extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the
presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies
more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the
sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for
tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless
coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid
things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than
Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not
this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in
the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes
derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few
exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have
noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump
than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH
that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary
win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton
keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders
dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and
state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump
gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to
those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders'
in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of
the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the
help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any
chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses)
with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the
nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect
of losing the presidency anyway.
1) The New York Board of
Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.
2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to
the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging
~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other
apparently more pressing business
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war
chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's
still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing
Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John
Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago
School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built
a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet,
Bernie's still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right
wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet
of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
"... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
"... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
"... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
"... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
"... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
"... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
"... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all
that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen!
Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these
corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial
system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total
control of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have
now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi
from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even
casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not
conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent
threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule,
not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama
put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the
informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright
massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about
the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style
massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention.
But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured –
to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against
an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and
Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most
bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has
multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in
Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition
of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets.
Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders
on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured
in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when
foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in
what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government
atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while
government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although
their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a
lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the
Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the
Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had
her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest
she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young
voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office
illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent.
The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always
been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was
silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a
24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household
is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the
median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost
HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23
billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending
to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black
businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr
in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands
for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat
the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and
Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about
laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs,
to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath
spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle
of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown
by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless
of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice
for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing
the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for
cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by
the FBI and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You
can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up
until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama.
Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless.
I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York
Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from
behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone
not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to
disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted
manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism.
Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists
is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if
it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about
you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi,
gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth
super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more
money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank
lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
When you have read "Diplomacy
by Deception " by
John Coleman you might start to suspect that the British and United States Governments are actually
the most corrupt in the world and third word dictators are just wannabes in comparison with those governments
(and often are corrupted by them, storing the loot in Western banks and moving families to GB, France,
Italy or Spain ). They completely betrayed interests of their own population carrying out the designs
of global neoliberal elite (globalists), to which former President Bush I, one of its more able servants,
referred to as "the New World Order." The first significant reaction against this level of corruption
was spontaneous burst of support to Donald Trump during 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. ..."
This book has much information helpful to those following government intrusion into world affairs.
The history book MI6, can verify some, but I found this book lacking in documentation. The author
has source notes, but most of his statements can't be used due to the poor documentation. I am
hesitant to qoute statements he makes in the book. His Index is also poor. However, the book is
good for general information of many illegal acts by the Council of foreign Relations. You'll
just have to do a lot more reading to verify several comments he makes in the book.
Paul LaCross Simonton, April 29, 2002
Dr. John Coleman's best
Every chapter in Diplomacy by Deception is a new subject. I am just guessing, but, it appears
to me that Dr. Coleman took a selection of monographs he wrote, and, made them into a book.
Oscar L. Vazquez, November 8, 1999
Very, very good book
As an avid history reader, the information that Dr. Coleman exposed in this book explained
the unexplainable about historical facts, the manipulation of the situations and the secret purposes
behind the reality. I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind
the invasion. It is a very hard book to understand for those who are not involved in policy
or history. Congratulations once again Dr. Coleman for this great book.
Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess
? Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
"... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
"... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
"... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
"... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
"... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue
that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness.
Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left
the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.
bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18
"happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly
that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted
them out like props, is exhibit A.
bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08
My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to
collect money.
Definitely true.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and
maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more
delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.
The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just
one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.
fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02
I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump"
by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to
do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably
increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the
election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have
gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to
change his policy positions.
Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if
he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather
than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.
He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton
rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly
he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets
the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll
have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.
sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58
I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the
FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect
money.
The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.
taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58
Trump most certainly is not change for the better.
How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has
been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty'
- of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...
Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42
Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way
worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.
DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34
Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether
we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us
what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?
Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down
authoritarian mindset any more clearer?
The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this
far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen
voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.
I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely
the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be
the year an Independent runs and wins.
danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32
I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable,
yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue
- and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also
have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics,
and he knew what was required to get to the White House.
PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14
Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be
idiots to nominate her.
PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12
Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced
to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of
the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.
PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09
Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is
just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.
PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07
Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.
Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07
His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented.
Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when
you can get off your ass and get it yourself?
8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06
What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative
Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary
rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense
of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues
of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others
are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem
for her in the general.
MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05
I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles
about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that
they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'?
Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates.
Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing
for them.
The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent,
albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the
phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
"... After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed. ..."
"... Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around. ..."
"... That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism, and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty about Trump? ..."
"... I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be. ..."
"... Where Neocons like Nuland go, death and destruction follow in their wake. Look at Ukraine. ..."
"... Instead we might already be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits. ..."
Yves here. We were one of the few sites to follow the brutal handling of the Cyprus banking system
when one of its major banks got wobbly in 2013. Cyprus was
demonized as a money laundering center , when its main sin was that it served as a conduit for
inbound investment into Russia, including investment by large, well-recognized companies. The reason
for structuring investments via entities in Cyprus was that that enabled them to be subject to British
law, which investors greatly preferred to relying on Russian law and courts. Cyprus thus has a significant
amount of its economy dependent on lawyers and bankers to structure these deals. The ECB lowered
the boom and forced bail-ins, which were more severe than they needed to be by virtue of one of the
major banks being restructured in a way that led to a significant subsidy to a Greek bank that bought
some of its operations. In other words, while something may well have needed to be done with the
Cyprus banks,
the brutality of the operation was driven by geopolitics, not the professed reasons.
The geopolitical angle of the West's meddling in Cyprus a bit more obvious in this John Helmer
sighting.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at Dances
with Bears
The US is intensifying the pressure on Cyprus to accept a secret NATO plan to keep Turkish forces
on the island.
Victoria Nuland, the State Department official in charge of regime change in Russia and Ukraine,
met for talks last week with the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, and with Turkish Cypriot
figures. The State Department and US Embassy in Nicosia have kept silent on what was said. A well-informed
Cypriot source reports Nuland "was in Cyprus to pre-empt any likelihood of future deepening in relations
with Russia. Anastasiades may not want to, but he may have no other option." A second Cypriot political
source said: "[Nuland] will try to blackmail him. I'm not sure how he will react."
lyman alpha blob, May 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm
Greece isn't happy about the Turks in Cyprus, period.
I was in Greece about 25 years ago when poppy Bush was president and paid a visit. That was
the first glimpse I had of US power first hand – there were hundreds of suits talking into their
sleeves lining the major route through Athens taken by the Bush motorcade. The whole city was
essentially shut down and I couldn't believe that the US could project that kind of power in a
foreign country. Later while I was at the Thessalonike airport coincidentally at the same time
Bush was there, our flight was delayed due to a bomb threat presumably directed at Bush. Never
did find out if it was a real bomb or not.
Don't remember the ostensible reason for the Bush visit to Greece but I do remember the Greeks
wanting the question Bush about the Turks occupying Cyprus and if the US would help end it. I
remember thinking Bush probably doesn't even know where Cyprus is but even if he did, the US wasn't
interested and weren't going to do a damn thing about it.
After 25 years of not seeming to car at all, now the US wants to make the problem worse
by polishing apples for Erdogan for some reason I really cannot fathom. Cui bono indeed.
craazyboy, May 4, 2016 at 10:39 am
Looks pretty clear cut to me. Turkey is an ally. Russia most definitely not. Turkey could
use somewhere to store all that surplus ME oil they've been buying. The USA(Nuland) can even kick
in a few bucks for infrastructure. It all makes sense. Win-Win all around.
ambrit, May 4, 2016 at 11:26 am
Poor Cyprus. We might as well revive the Crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. Are there any Lusignans
alive today?
That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about HRClinton's vaunted foreign-policy
experience. That Nuland is still around is all that I have to know about Obama, American exceptionalism,
and this supposedly scandal-free administration. And the Democratic elites want to get all snotty
about Trump?
After the streaming of the video-assassination of Osama bin Laden of the last few days, and
after this maneuver, which is assassination of a small and vulnerable state, I respect George
Orwell even more as a voice of prophecy.
With Nuland, the ultimate neocon, we get WWIII in a Clinton Presidency. The key to Trump will
be his proposed cabinet, VP, advisors etc. If nary a dual citizen neocon or a Goldman Treasury
Secretary, we may have a chance; otherwise Trump will be outed as just another globalist stooge.
Are the oil discoveries off of Cyprus (announced in 2014) be part of the geopolitics discussed
here? Cyprus made an agreement with Greece & Egypt
according to the Guardian .
I am really really worried about how aggressive our foreign policy is, and this remarkable
essay shows how dangerous our policy with respect to Russia can be.
Resuscitating the Turkish part of Cyprus may be a great money-maker for Ms Nuland's friends.
You can wander though entire deserted towns and villages. Everyone's voted with their feet and
land can be had at a fraction of its cost in the south. It used to have the added advantage of
being immune to extradition requests (remember Polly Peck?) but I am unsure if that continues.
This looks like another aspect of Erdogan's vice-like grip on the reproductive glands of the
European Commission and ECB. It really is quite funny to see the two countries directing EU policy
these days are USA and Turkey.
I have been thinking that the NeoCon response to a Trump Presidency will be assassination.
Naturally an assassination blamed on some left wing fanatic – will the next Oswald please stand
up! Could it be, however, that the NeoCons recognize their problem isn't Trump, it's the people
supporting Trump and their anti-establishment views? In that case, the only way to whip them into
line is falling back on the most tried and true form of of social conditioning: nationalism/patriotism.
Perhaps it won't be a countdown to knock off Trump before January. Instead we might already
be into a countdown on a shooting war with Russia. This wouldn't just rally all Americans to the
imperial cause, it was also force President Trump to rely on his nationalistic traits.
I wonder if the NeoCons could be that clever. They have succeeded in running the most powerful
country in the world for 15 years in spite of countless disasters. Maybe they are clever enough
to achieve their next great misadventure, one ending in nuclear war.
"... By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus ..."
"... Pro Publica ..."
"... Pro Publica's ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds. ..."
"... The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons. ..."
"... The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad. ..."
"... This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him. ..."
"... James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out. ..."
"... Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back. ..."
"... I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). ..."
Yves here. Two things struck me about Jim Kidney's article below. One is that he still wants to
think well of his former SEC colleagues. I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who
wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in
which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying
to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful
level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization
was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except
with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). Kidney does criticize
corrosive practices, particularly the SEC stopping developing its own lawyers and becoming dependent
on the revolving door, but his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems.
Number two, and related, are the class assumptions at work. The SEC does not want to see securities
professionals at anything other than bucket shops as bad people. At SEC conferences, agency officials
are virtually apologetic and regularly say, "We know you are honest people who want to do the right
thing." Please tell me where else in law enforcement is that the underlying belief.
By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at
Watch the Circus
The New Yorker and
Pro Publica websites today posted an article by Pro Publica's Jesse Eisinger
about the de minimis investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the conduct
of Goldman Sachs in the sale of derivatives based on mortgage-backed securities during the run-up
to the Great Recession of 2008. The details of the SEC's failure to aggressively pursue Goldman in
the particular investigation, Abacus, and its refusal to investigate fully misconduct by Goldman
and other "Too Big to Fail" banks, stands not only as a historic misstep by the SEC and its Division
of Enforcement, but undermines the claim that the Obama Administration has been "tough on Wall Street."
The Pro Publica version contains links to a few of the documents I provided.
No one in authority who was involved in the Goldman investigation ever gave me an explanation
for why the effort was so slight. Mr. Eisinger's article doesn't offer any explanation from the one
investigation participant brave enough to comment. The details of the investigation into Abacus at
my level as trial counsel, which I provided to Pro Publica earlier this year, compels the
conclusion that the SEC, its chairman at the time, Mary Schapiro, and the leadership of the Division
of Enforcement were more interested in a quick public relations hit than in pursuing a thorough investigation
of Goldman, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan and other large Wall Street firms.
Although the emails and documents I produced to Pro Publica stemming from my role as
the designated (later replaced) trial attorney for the Division of Enforcement are excruciatingly
boring to all but the most dedicated securities lawyer, even a lay person can observe that the Division
of Enforcement was more anxious to publicize a quick lawsuit than to follow the trail of clues as
far up the chain-of-command at Goldman as the evidence warranted. Serious consideration also never
was given to fraud theories in any of the Big Bank cases stemming from the Great Recession that would
better tell the story of how investors were defrauded and who was responsible, due either to dereliction
or design.
Instead, the SEC restricted its investigation to the narrowest theory of liability, had to be
pressed (by me) to go even one short rung above the lowest level Goldman supervisor in its investigation
(which took months to push through, though investigative subpoenas are frequently issued on far less
in far smaller cases) and finally dropped other investigations of Goldman in return for a $550 million
settlement
announced July 15, 2010. To my knowledge (I retired in March 2014), the SEC never again pursued
Goldman for its mortgage securities fraud or other major fraud. There is no evidence on the SEC website
that it did so.
At a minimum, it can be said that the SEC left 90 percent of the money on the table at a time
when a more aggressive investigation of the company, as well as others, could have counted for something
by disclosing, in a detailed court complaint, Wall Street wrongs that might have helped policy makers
better address the subject and allow damaged individuals and entities to bring their own lawsuits.
It is very important to emphasize emphatically several points. First, I have zero evidence, and
would be very surprised, if any of the individuals at the Division of Enforcement, including senior
supervisors or the SEC chairman or associate commissioners, acted unlawfully or were motivated principally
to protect Goldman and other big banks. All of these people appeared well-intentioned from their
point of view, even they never really explained, to me, or to many others at the Commission, their
motives in limiting investigations. The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in
the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal
sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public
positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never
got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was. Its range
was clearly limited from the outset: we will sue the bank and not look hard for evidence of individual
participation beyond the lowest levels.
By the same token, it is unfair to assume as a fact that any of the individuals at Goldman not
sued, or anyone at Paulson & Co., violated the securities laws, civilly or criminally. Like any citizen,
they are entitled to a day in court. Absent such opportunity, they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Arguments in my internal correspondence that evidence was sufficient to sue should be viewed only
as that - arguments.
So my point in releasing these documents to Pro Publica is not to chastise or hold up
to public criticism those involved at the SEC, Paulson & Co. or Goldman, though criticism of the
process and of the underlying financial conduct certainly is inevitable. All of these institutions
have substantial influence in the investment industry. Rather, it is to bring to light the actual
conduct of one of several SEC investigations into Big Bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial
crisis.
As I told Mr. Eisinger when I met him, I hoped he would go to the individuals in charge of the
SEC investigation at the time and find out why the investigation was so limited. I have spent six
years wondering what is the true answer to that question. Perhaps there were sound reasons, other
than the urge to get out a quick press release, which led experienced criminal prosecutors with histories
in Wall Street to smother a major investigation by limiting it to the lowest level employee possible,
to express total resistance to even investigating further up the chain of command, and ignoring without
serious explanation and analysis what I and others, including my own immediate supervisors, viewed
as the more appropriate theory for civil prosecution. I hope there are such reasons. As a trial attorney
at the SEC for over 20 years, I bled SEC blue. I believed that the agency usually tried to do the
best it could, using analog era procedures and processes to combat fraud in a digital age. I am saddened
to release this information. But the notion that "the Administration was tough on Wall Street" must
be addressed by facts, not press releases and self-serving interviews, else the system's problems
cannot be adequately addressed and repaired to deal with the next financial crisis.
Not only is the issue of how the financial sector enforcement agencies handled the wrongs of the
Great Recession an important political issue, but it is important to history. It is important that
the facts not be shielded from the public so that we can all learn for the future. And it is a melancholy
thought that, presented with the opportunity for a rigorous investigation and airing of facts in
civil or criminal proceedings gone, history will be denied a fairer story of both the financial crisis
itself and how the government responded.
As
many news organizations have noted , the taxpayer and Goldman shareholders will pay the combination
of penalties and repayments in the DOJ settlement. No individual was named as liable in the civil
settlement with Goldman nor in any of the other similar, and even larger, financial settlements entered
into with the Department of Justice, all of which are vastly greater than what the SEC obtained in
its "quick hit, one and done" enforcement actions. DOJ must be credited with what appears to have
been a far more thorough investigation of wrongdoing than the SEC performed, but the public is properly
mystified that no individuals were charged, criminally or civilly, although the DOJ press releases
contains the usual caveat that "the investigation continues."
The settlements with Goldman and other Big Banks were resolved under the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which allows the Feds to ignore the normal five-year
statute of limitations for fraud, but does not permit suit by private party victims. As has been
the practice with DOJ when dealing with Wall Street, no criminal charge was brought. In fact, no
complaint was filed in any of these cases. Instead, DOJ entered into contractual arrangements with
the banks. Failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract would subject them to civil enforcement
as a breach of contract matter, not a contempt charge in federal District Court.
Contrary to claims by politicians, it is clear that the Obama Administration has not been hard-hitting
on Wall Street fraudsters. The large fines obtained by the Department of Justice, while a short-term
pinch, are simply a cost of doing business. Relying on fines to penalize rich Wall Street banks,
which, after all, specialize in making money and do it well, if not always honestly, is like fining
Campbell Soup in chicken broth. It costs something, but doesn't change anything in the way of operations
or personnel.
Despite billions in fines representing many more billions in fraud, the enforcement agencies of
the United States have been unable to find anyone responsible criminally or civilly for this huge
business misconduct other than a janitor or two at the lowest rung of the companies. Nor have they
sought to impose systemic changes to these banks to prevent similar frauds from happening again.
Yessir, according to the Obama administration, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank
and other institutions made their contributions to tearing down the economy, but no one was responsible.
They are ghost companies. And nothing needs to be done to prevent such intent or dereliction in the
future.
Law enforcement by contract? Clearly, the banks made it a condition of settlement that no complaint,
civil or criminal, be filed. That might gum up the works by requiring state regulators to take action
under their own rules, or cause other collateral consequences.
Ah, say the defenders of the status quo, don't forget about Dodd-Frank, the unwieldy legislation
passed by feckless Democrats influenced by big money contributors and their own fear of appearing
too aggressive (a particular Democratic Party contagion). Dodd-Frank was and is a virtual chum pool
for Wall Street lawyers and lobbyists, leaving most of the substance to regulatory agencies such
as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, who for years have been significantly captured by those they
are supposed to regulate. The private sector lawyers and lobbyists have open doors to these places
to "help" write the rules and add complexity, which they later complain about in court, challenging
those same rules as too complex.
Dear citizen, just remember this: complexity favors fraud, and certainly favors Wall Street and
corporate America. You can't understand the rules and neither can Congress or all but the most dedicated
experts. That's a lot of room to disguise misdeeds. To take a current example, which came to my attention
just before completing this post, Congress is trying to use sentencing reform, generally thought
of as intending to remove inequities from the criminal justice system, to also make it even tougher
to prosecute and punish white-collar crime. Is this why the Koch Brothers suddenly show such public
attention to the poor and needy by favoring such legislation?
See this discussion of adding the "mens rea" requirement to such legislation. Burying an important
but legalistic issue in otherwise liberal leaning legislation is a current example of disguising
lax enforcement of white-collar crime in a complicated package. As one Democratic congressman suggested,
how can a liberal vote against sentencing reform? The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile
is too complicated for the average voter.
Not coincidentally, adding a requirement to the law that it is a defense to either the crime itself
or to sentencing that "I didn't know my acts were against the law" is a get out of jail free card
as the complexity of laws addressed to ever more sophisticated business misconduct grows. Wall Street
clearly has shown no shame in using the defense that "no one knew". Can't blame them. It has worked
so far. Maybe they don't even need new legislation.
I was told repeatedly when I entered the Goldman investigation that synthetic CDOs were just too
complex for me to understand. Of course, it appeared to be plain vanilla fraud selling a product
designed to fail but nicely packaged for chumps to buy. Claims of complexity hide many easily understood
sins.
At least for the major sins, we don't need even more complex regulations. Instead, put leadership
in place who will aggressively enforce the laws we have already. That would raise plenty of eyebrows
and put some bums in prison, or at least make them pay civil and criminal penalties personally. As
many have noted, prison or, at least, personal financial liability, beats corporate concessions every
time and pays back in future reluctance to break the law. The country should try it sometime.
So back to little me, a small and ineffective cog in the larger system. Why is this release of
documents so long after the investigation?
My friends know that I have been upset since 2010 about the way the SEC handled the Goldman case
and, in my view (confirmed by other trial lawyers), that it became a template for other SEC civil
suits against the Big Banks. In 2011 I wrote an anonymous letter to The New York Times complaining
about the lack of investigative effort by the Division of Enforcement and the impact of the "revolving
door" bringing Wall Street defense lawyers into the highest reaches of the SEC. This is a practice
that Obama has continued at most departments and agencies having to do with the financial system,
following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. The New York Times letter was based entirely on publicly
available information.
I was dismayed to not find any follow-up to my letter in The New York Times . I gave
up trying to bring attention to the investigative lassitude of the agency. Interest appeared to be
over.
A year after I retired, I sent a copy of the letter to The Times , under a cover letter
identifying myself. One of the addressees on the original letter called and told me the original
letter never was received. The caller suggested that was because I misaddressed it to the old location
of The New York Times . I felt foolish, of course, but I guess that in 2014, when the letter
was finally received, The Times didn't see fit to follow-up the information even knowing
its source. This was another indication to me that the time for debate over the law enforcement treatment
of wrong doers on Wall Street had passed.
Once, years earlier and only for a brief time, the SEC was an agency that was at least sometimes
fearless of Wall Street institutions. In those days, the directors of the Division of Enforcement
were home-grown, not imported from Wall Street law firms. After 1996, that ended. Every director
since has been nurtured as a Wall Street defense lawyer. The decline in performance has followed
an expected arc. No one has seemed bothered by this. It seems the phrase "lawyers represent client
interests" is sufficient explanation to insulate this practice from critics. In this view (pushed
by lawyers), lawyers are the only people in America who are not influenced by their work experience,
including friendships and defense of client practices. They are SO exceptional! So give it up, Jim,
I finally told myself. It's the nature of Washington to put foxes in hen houses and claim they are
protecting the fowl.
But in April 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his presidential candidacy, based principally
on anger over how Wall Street has escaped being held seriously responsible for its misdeeds. If you
credit Sanders with nothing else, praise him for not letting go of the notion of justice for those
who suffered and those who caused pain and anger for millions. Yes, the banks are not solely responsible
for the Great Recession, but they contributed more than their fair share and leveraged immensely
the damage initially caused by others.
Sanders was not treated seriously. The publications I read made it clear that Sanders was, like
Donald Trump, a flash in the pan. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton would be nominated. Anger against
Wall Street and inequality were issues, but not worthy vehicles for a political campaign. Nothing
here. Move on.
It turns out that the ravages caused by Wall Street are the gift that keeps on giving. As Sanders
campaigned with far more success than predicted, and Secretary of State Clinton defended President
Obama as "tough on Wall Street," it was evident that my small contribution to correcting the record
might be timely.
So here it is.
Do I think Obama is responsible for the ineffective and embarrassing lay downs at the SEC and
DOJ? Yes, I do. I have no idea if the President communicated to his law enforcement appointees that
they should "go easy on Wall Street." Rarely is such overt instruction necessary in Washington. But
it is not hard to believe that in some fashion he did send such signals, since he came into office
with a mantra of letting bygones be bygones, including in the far more important arena of the false
narratives for invading Iraq.
In any event, the chairman of the SEC and the attorney general are appointed by the President.
At a minimum, we can say with certainty that Obama was satisfied with their performance. It is difficult
to conceive that, as a Harvard educated lawyer who also taught law at the University of Chicago,
it never crossed his mind how massive civil or criminal misconduct could go on without the supervision
or knowledge of at least mid-level executives. Certainly, the public criticism was brought to his
attention. His response was to create a joint task force on the subject of fraud in general. Its
main visible public function is to collect all the press releases on fraud prosecutions, including
small-time fraud, on one website . It also
offers advice to "elders" on how to avoid fraudulent scams. The pro forma mention of the
task force in DOJ's announcement of the Goldman settlement signals that the Task Force doesn't do
much. Again, law enforcement by press release.
The alternative possibility, never mentioned because it is preposterous, is that big Wall Street
firms so lack supervision of their lower level employees that fraud on a huge scale can be conducted
without the knowledge of even mid-level executives. At the SEC, at least, such a conclusion should
call for application of its "regulatory" function to impose supervisory conditions on the banks.
No such action was ever undertaken. Instead, it was "pay up some money and nevermind."
Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather
than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the
SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds
of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC
or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds.
I believe that the American public is entitled to accurate information about how their government
works, including the important regulatory agencies. One way to do this is to fully disclose how the
sausage is made, especially when the process is defective. Self-promoting press releases swallowed
by a fawning business press is not sufficient. I knew I would not disclose any non-public information
about the Goldman investigation while the lawsuit against Fabrice Tourre was pending. He was the
one guy at Goldman the SEC sued personally. In fact, I think he was the only guy employed by any
of the big banks sued personally. (Another fellow who worked with the banks - not for the banks -
was sued in another case. He was found not liable, with the jury asking how come higher-ups were
not in the dock and urging the investigation to continue. It wasn't.) The Tourre case concluded a
few years ago with a verdict against the defendant. All appeals are exhausted. The statute of limitations
has expired for private actions. Disclosure of the information I had can do no harm to the public
or to pending litigation.
The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to
those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption,
I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement
who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated
investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their
supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try
hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy,
political, or personal reasons.
As final egotistical end note, I must say that, despite all of my personal reservations about
his dedication to effective law enforcement in the financial sector, I voted for the President twice.
I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. But I ask myself: Is this the best that two political
parties given de facto monopoly over selection of presidential candidates can do?
Whoever is nominated and elected, Republican or Democrat, I hope that he or she will recognize
the need to end the practice of hiring Wall Street personnel to run our financial enforcement agencies.
They should begin by looking to home-trained personnel to lead the major departments and agencies,
such as Treasury, the SEC and the Department of Justice, including the chief of the Antitrust Division.
These are the people who are responsible for these institutions on a daily basis and also understand
the nature and importance of their mission. They have a career stake in doing an effective job. Outsiders
are, in general, more interested in resume polishing for the next private job. Additionally, much
great talent leaves these agencies for their own more lucrative private careers when they see their
own chances for advancement blocked by outsiders or their energies trying to fairly but aggressively
enforce the law sapped by timid leadership.
One party has chastised our government on every occasion for nearly 40 years and shows no intention
of reining in Big Business or Wall Street. Directly or by implication, these attacks tarnish government
employees in general, making a public service career less attractive to our most talented citizens.
The other party has been indifferent or ineffective in its defense of civil service and has addressed
financial sector wrongs by adding to the complexity of the system rather than cutting through it.
As a result, some of our businesses are above the law.
Something has got to change. It will. The question is, will it be for the better?
The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality
and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad.
A little history: I was hired, first as an adjunct, then a tenure-track professor, by the interdisciplinary
Freshman teaching unit at my old university. Two years before I would have come up for tenure
(and gotten it) they axed the program and switched me, against its will, to the History Department.
And they reset my tenure clock to zero. Long story short, they were never going to tenure me.
So I slogged on and earned my pay and got my two kids through high school. By then, my wife wanted
out of the suburbs and said she was leaving, preferably with me, but leaving. So we moved to the
country. This cut me off from the academic life (and nice $72,000 a year paycheck) that I had
struggled for years to enter and excel in.
So what? So, It's gone. I'm cut off. My intended life's work is ruined. At 51 I'm an unemployed
naval historian with two books and seven refereed journal articles and I can't get an interview
for a full-time job at a community college. How painful is this? It's murder. Hurts all the time.
No more exciting lectures to give. No more university library at my beck and call. No more access
to journals. No more conferences. It's an occasional one-off course and driving a delivery van.
This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize.
If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack.
You don't want to be him.
Mr Levy, I am very sympathetic to your situation – long story short, I was in the forefront
of the late 70s to the present, layoffs in various industries where I found myself game-fully
employed. I too, no longer believe I will ever be employed full time at any job.
But I argue that it is not that the gods do not favour us; it is that we are the outcome of
bad gov't policies and unregulated (regulated for the consumer) businesses practices. Hence, my
lack of sympathy or willingness to tolerate breast beating (see my April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am posting)
by those who put us here.
James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired
from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career,
although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way
out.
Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes,
its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking
back.
Are there any yacht clubs nearby you? There is like 4 of them within 10 minutes of me (I'm
on the Great Lakes) You could teach sailing and rigging no doubt. Bonus: Union crane operators
are required to know their rigging – they may need teachers too.
More than ever, I am convinced the capitalist system needs to be rejected as the means determining
how goods and services are delivered. The injustice and inequality generated are too great. Finding
a positive expressive outlet for this dissatisfaction will require leadership- and a new vision
for the future.
The amount of social damage being inflicted by the elite is almost beyond comprehension. Since
they have successfully insulated themselves form the consequences of their actions, they remain
aloof and uncaring for the plight of ordinary people, not to mention the health of the planet.
This system will continue to cut more and more people off from the benefits of collective social
action and effort. The work of the many, supporting the desires of the few cannot stand.
We all have to decide the level of inequality we are willing to live with. How people answer
this question will naturally sort them into common communities. Leave the isolated gated communities
to the elite. Careerism, like capitalism, is a dead end if your position cannot be guaranteed.
The amount of talent and passion for work wasted under the current system is another undercounted
fact. Sustainability and democracy are not compatible with capitalism.
Getting mad is only the beginning. The anger must be directed in some productive fashion. Any
resistance to the current order must have broad social support and that support only has strength
if self-reliant. Building these self-reliant structures is what the future will hold. If the plutocrats
can build a world for themselves, why can't the common man. It only takes work,discipline, and
control over the means of production.
Workers without power, influence, and the means to obtain life necessities are slaves. Is the
best the human mind can conceive a life of benevolent serfdom?
By the way, I believe I would enjoy sitting in on one of your lectures. I'm sure I would learn
much- and be a better man for it.
@James Levy … sorry to hear. I know a few who have been chewed up by the academic meat grinder.
I hope you can find a productive outlet for your scholarship. Exile is hard.
"The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter."
That's it! Stop right there! I will not let you (speaking to the author) BS your guilty conscience
over my internet link. The average voter clearly knows they are getting screwed, that Wall Street
and the voter's own bank is ripping the voter off, and most clearly, that the justice department,
from state and local to federal, is enabling this injustice.
You sir, are swimming with sharks. Your morality is "is it legal?", your justification is "for
the shareholder". Therefore, you refuse to see the mendacity and instead excuse it for ignorance.
I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who
initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally
corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound
to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic
or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly
in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3,
you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing).
Wow, that's a mouthful – and it's only one sentence. Whilst I love your pieces, I've noticed
that many of the articles – at least the run up summation to the articles – tend to be written
in a stream-of-consciousness style that, frankly, is hard to digest. This seems to be the case
more now than in the past. I don't know if you're harried or on an impossible schedule, but could
you please make your syntax easier to read? Thanks from a long-time reader and donator.
Because it's a Sunday and I have time to goof off, one potential revision - b/c I believe what
Mr Kidney has to say is important enough for me to spend a few minutes on one potential suggestion.
I've amended and added what I hope are accurate meanings:
----
Focusing on these as the key subject /verb pairs: I know (other whistleblowers) (other whistleblowers) [lost their jobs] (other whistleblowers) [blamed themselves – initially]
(other whistleblowers) [finally… accept] the system in which they operated … [was corrupt]
… even if… (some employees) tried to [be competent]
(It - there's a problem with 'it' as the subject, because we are unclear what 'it'
refers back to - I'll interpret 'it' as 'investigating fraud' ) was bound to…
-------------–
I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters. They wound up losing their jobs.
Initially, they blamed themselves, until they finally came to accept that the system in which
they operated was so fundamentally corrupt that they could not retain a sense of their own integrity
while working within the organization.
Despite the fact that some people really were trying to do the right thing, for reasons that
I will explain, investigating fraud was bound to go in one of only three directions:
1. fraud would not be investigated at all,
2. fraud investigation would serve the agency's need for better public relations - in other words,
the appearance of fraud investigation would be allowed to proceed, but only if it was merely cosmetic
(or served some larger political purpose), or else
3. fraud investigation became temporarily elevated, but only because the organization* was suddenly
in trouble – and consequently, needed to burnish its credibility by actually investigating fraud.
(Although 3 is a variant of 2, in the third option, credible fraud investigation could occur
if, and only if, political necessity enabled competent SEC employees to actually investigate fraud
in order to maintain the reputation of the SEC).
[NOTE: *It's not entirely clear here whether 'the organization' is the target business, or
whether it is the SEC (which would need to burnish it's cred in the face of bad publicity)]
------------
Not sure how close I came to the author's intended meanings, but I thought that I'd give it
a shot.
The sentence parses correctly even though it is long. Stream of consciousness often does not
parse correctly, plus another characteristic is the jumbling of ideas or observations. The point
is to try to recreate the internal state of the character.
For instance, from David Lodge's novel "The British Museum Is Falling Down":
It partook, he thought, shifting his weight in the saddle, of metempsychosis, the way his
humble life fell into moulds prepared by literature. Or was it, he wondered, picking his nose,
the result of closely studying the sentence structure of the English novelists? One had resigned
oneself to having no private language any more, but one had clung wistfully to the illusion
of a personal property of events. A find and fruitless illusion, it seemed, for here, inevitably
came the limousine, with its Very Important Personage, or Personages, dimly visible in the
interior. The policeman saluted, and the crowd pressed forward, murmuring 'Philip', 'Tony',
'Margaret', 'Prince Andrew'.
More generally:
The Stream of Consciousness style of writing is marked by the sudden rise of thoughts and
lack of punctuations.
The sentence may be longer than you like but this is not stream of consciousness. A clear logical
structure ("first, second, third") is the antithesis of stream of consciousness.
I fail to see why fraud is not prosecuted. We can get cute with fancy words but fraud is clear
and simple. Also – Enron results in SARBOX which seems to be clearly ignored. Yves – do we know
of any SARBOX prosecutions? Clinton started deregulation, Bush implemented deregulation and Obama
maintains it. No wonder the kids are mad. The financial industry makes the Koch brothers look
like pikers.
There is actually a high legal bar to prosecuting fraud.
I have written at length re Sarbox and the answer is no. And under Sarbox, you don't need to
prosecute, you can start with a civil case and flip it to criminal if you get strong enough evidence
in discovery. There was only one case (IIRC, with Angelo Mozilo) where the SEC filed Sarbox claims,
one in which it also filed securities law claims. The judge threw out the Sarbox claims with no
explanation. I assume it was because the judge regarded that as doubling up: you can do Sarbox
or securities law (the claims to have some similarity) but not both. But the SEC as it so often
does seems to have lost its nerve after that one.
I don't know if an election would have consequences and if a new administration headed by Sanders
would make it the SEC more responsible to the taxpayers and not the investors / banks.
It only took a decade for Markopolos to have his ponzi scheme information read by SEC.
I want to like this guy, I really do. But then he goes and says stuff like this:
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got
a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.
So he doesn't understand how the revolving door works…or he does but he's being purposefully
obtuse about it. Sacrifice my ass! Gentleman my heiny! And claiming that there's no proof of criminality
when, as is pointed out above, Sarbanes-Oxley was obviously violated isn't helping things either.
Listen dude, pick a side. It's either the American people or Wall Street crooks and their abettors
in government. You don't get to have it both ways. This kind of minimization and wishy-washyness
is only helping the crooks. More disappointing than I exepected.
these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public
rage !!!
I don't actually agree. I think the guy feels a little guilty for not doing more, now he's
trying to salve his conscience. Still, he can't quite bring himself to admit that the people he
was working for may well have been criminals. They were just so nice!
Self-reflection is not comfortable, and most people don't have much tolerance for it. I think
this guy's legitimately trying to do the right thing (not cover up for criminality) it's just
that it's really psychologically difficult to admit certain aspects of reality. It's not like
he's the only one.
I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people ( people
in high finance, their underlings, traders, hedge funders, and other assorted enablers of massive
fraud upon the general public, are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany! I'm not buying
whatever faux sincerity they're trying to project…….
They've screwed millions of trusting people with their fraudulent grifting!
> I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people […],
are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany!
Especially when it comes after a fat retirement and a lengthy career of going along. I have
much more respect for people who really did put their daily bread on the line, and there are plenty
of those people, a lot of whom Obama sent to jail. So, yeah, great, you finally told the truth…
but where were you when the country needed you to speak out?
Couldn't we use civil forfeiture to go after them regardless of whether we can prove any actual
crime? What's good for the average citizen is surely good for the elite banker…
It's a good thing they're gentlemen. I don't know if I could handle all the looting and self-dealing
if it came from common ruffians. Truly we are fortunate to be in such hands, my fellow countrymen!
According to Bill Black in a ted talk 2014. After the Savings and loans debacle, where the
regulators went after the worst of the worst criminals, they made 30.000 criminal referrals and
1000 procecutions with a 90% succes rate.
Now after the 2008 crisis, which was 70 times bigger causing 10 million job losses and costing
11 trillion dolllars, the Obama administration has not made one single criminal referral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGE
Today I fell over some information about the IMF, that the organization is exempt from legal
prosecutions and taxes. Can this be true?
From the article: "The employees who bare the IMF badge are pretty much exempt from all forms
of government intervention. And, according to LisaHavenNews, the IMF "law book," the Articles
of Agreement lists the reasons and requirements for exclusion from government mandate."
Thank you, I was hoping someone would mention Bill Black.
I'm a software/hardware product/business development engineer. In 2008, after 20 years of reading
the WSJ and stunned by the sellout to Murdoch, I went to the internet independent media (IM) to
follow the 'economic crisis'. Within a few months it was clear to me 1) I had learned nothing
of substance reading the WSJ, 2) the U.S. MSM, education system, and government are thoroughly
captured/corrupt.
Being a 'reader' (note: I don't know anyone who reads non-fiction) for me this 'worldview transition'
was quite natural, nothing really surprised me, and it was a big relief to discover such good
information/analysis so easily available on the internet. However, eight years later, I have yet
to meet a single person who has rejected the MSM or tuned in to what's happening, via the IM or
otherwise. In fact, after leaving the university in 1990, I have yet to meet a single person with
any basic understanding of (or the slightest interest in, or concern about) the extreme institutional
criminality of the the Savings & Loan Crisis, Asian Economic Crisis, Technology Bubble, the 2008
crisis, or the many economic/military wars-of-aggression methodically destroying one government/economy/country
after another.
To me, nothing made the global/economic/organized/mafia criminality more clear than the 2008/2009
articles by Bill Black. Back then I again foolishly assumed people would rally behind Dr. Black
to reestablish basic law enforcement against yet another obvious largest-ever "epidemic" of organized
crime. Looking back, the highly organized (and very successful) criminality of the Paulson/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke/etc.
cabal was truly an amazing operation to behold. Perhaps the most shocking news came in 2010 when
numerous studies confirmed that the top 7% of Americans had already "profited" from the economic
crisis, that the criminally organized upper class had not only increased their net wealth but,
more importantly, had increased their rate of wealth accumulation relative to the bottom 93%.
Still, to me, infinitely more amazing, the bottom 93% didn't, and still don't, seem to care, or
if they do, they've done absolutely nothing to even start to fight back.
Today, when reading these articles, I'm astounded how completely meek and 'unorganized' the
bottom 93% are compared to the extremely vicious and organized top 7%. Year after year the wealthy
elite, who's core organizing philosophy is "take or be taken, kill or be killed", increasingly
wallow in dangerously high and unprecedented levels of wealth accumulated by blatant/purposeful/methodical/criminal/vicious
looting while their victims, the bottom 93% 'working class', do absolutely nothing (what are they
doing?…. other than playing with their phone-toys, facebook, video games, movies?). At this point,
the main (only?) reason I continue to 'read' is to perhaps someday 'behold' the working class
93% attempting to educate themselves and consequently 'organize' to defend themselves.
I sympathize with Mr. Kidney and applaud him for doing what he can to try to rectify this abhorrent
situation. I also applaud him for placing the blame squarely on Obama and his reasons for doing
so are solid.
What I find much harder to understand is why he would vote for Obama even in 2012 after it
became apparent that Obama was ultimately responsible for stonewalling his investigation, and
his complete willingness to vote for the corrupt Democrat party no matter what going forward.
As long as enough people continue to have that attitude things will never change until the
whole system comes crashing down. I'd much rather see an FDR-type overhaul of the system rather
than a complete collapse as I'm rather fond of civilization. But I've come to expect the latter
rather than the former so I'll be reading my weekly Archdruid report for the foreseeable future.
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got
a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.
Yes poor babies for that "significant personal sacrifice" that resulted in "even more lucrative"
private employment. The author explains the problem then scratches his head over what it might
be.
In a rational world there would be a strict separation between the regulated and the regulators.
The government would hire professional experts at decent salaries and they never ever would be
allowed to then move on to jobs with the regulated. Clearly the assumption underlying our current–irrational–system
is that these high status technocrats are "gentlemen" with a code of honor. Welcome to the 19th
century. Those long ago plutocrats in their stately English mansions were all gentlemen and therefore
entitled to their privileges by their superior breeding. They were the better sort.
Meanwhile for lesser mortals it seems totally unsurprising when laws are ignored because you
hire your police from the ranks of the criminal gangs. No head scratching needed.
Reid Muoio (boss of kidney @ $EC) has a brother at a major tall bldg law firm whose job is
to help fortune 500 companies deal with D & O insurance issues…so when in the article Muoio says
"He" did not go thru the revolving door…it was fraud by omission…his brother sits on the opposite
side of these private settlement agreements…
so is Kidney unaware…leaving us to maybe accept he was never much of an investigator…or just
forgot to point it out for us…
The world is full of govt types who tell us TINA…
The wealthy Elliott Spitzer told us he would have loved to help "the little people" but the
OCC and then scotus with waters v wachovia…except scotus ruled only direct subsidiaries get protection
and the OCC specifically said the trustee operations of OCC regulated entities are also not covered/protected…
Does anyone else think this was insider demolition – not just the failure to prosecute, but
the whole financial implosion in the first place? Who writes up nothing but "shitty deals" – all
the while saying to each other: IBGYBG and survives to slink away? They must have had a heads
up that the financial system as we had known it in the 20th c. was done. They had a heads up and
then they got free passes. My only question is, Wasn't there a better way to bring down the system,
an honest way that protected us all? By the end of the cold war money itself had become an inconvenience
because of diminishing returns. And now the stuff is just plain dangerous because everyone who
got screwed (99%) wants their fair share still. It is paralyzing our thinking. Obama maintains
he personally "prevented another depression". I honestly think he might be insane. What we need
is a recognition that the old system was completely irrational and it isn't coming back. And most
of us are SOL. Somebody is going to figure out how to maintain both the value and usefulness of
money very soon, because we've got work to do.
The GFC was the first great financial crime of this millenium, and Goldman Sachs was at the
epicenter. A heist of gargantuan proportions, they didn't even need a safecracker after Bernanke
spun the dials and opened the door wide.
Imagine if the FBI and the Mafia exchanged their top leaders every few months. That's what
we have here with the SEC and Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
We can add to that. The business of the SEC is to provide cover.
In Yves intro she shares her views, first, that Kidney still wants to think well of his former
SEC colleagues and his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems, and second,
that there are class assumptions at work.
The first is obvious, as the SEC is an utter failure in its responsibility to investigate and
prosecute financial criminals. While Mr. Kidney devotes a fair amount of his passages pondering
how it can be that no individuals within these financial institutions bear personal responsibility,
Mr. Kidney fails to see the SEC through that same lens. To say Kidney's criticism of his coworkers
is muted is an understatement. The individuals at the SEC are corrupt. The individuals at the
Justice Department are corrupt. Probably all nice people: husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends,
etc. Just like those folks at the financial institutions. Mr. Kidney cuts them slack because of
his personal relationships with them. Mr. Kidney chooses to give them the benefit of doubt when
the totality of their professional performance at the SEC make clear this cannot be true.
With respect to class assumptions at work, Yves illustrates with the deference shown by SEC
officials and investigators toward these financial criminals and their presumption that these
individuals are honest. Mr. Kidney does share some of his disappointment in President Obama and
Obama's administration but fails to properly connect the dots. In short, the lack of financial
crime prosecutions is the result of a deliberate, planned and orchestrated effort.
Mr. Kindney's investigations were prevented in going forward by his superiors. He was never
given an explanation for this despite his asking. But Kidney believes his superiors are all good
people.
No, they are not. They are compromised people who have placed their career employment above
their sworn duty. The fact that their bosses have done the same, as have those in the Justice
Department as well as President Obama, should not diminish this fact. The phrase "class assumptions"
is too euphemistic when describing a system where there is no justice for the victims of financial
crimes, a system where the Justice Department and Administration coordinate to shield financial
criminals based on where they work.
This is America. In today's America the fact is certain individuals are above the law because
our elected officials at all levels accept that this is okay. Victims of these individuals will
be prevented access to their legal recourse, and that these criminals are protected from the highest
level of our government down. This goes way, way beyond class assumptions.
Yves has written extensively about how corporate interests have funded academic sinecures,
as well as continuing legal education seminars attended by attorneys and judges. This is part
of the fallout; if you want more, check out her section of ECONned where she explains how legal
thinking was perverted by business interests.
As someone who has fallen on their sword more than once (and again recently), I just want to
say that "placed their career employment above their sworn duty" is accurate but also oversimplifies
the situation.
People with families tell themselves that they balance performance of most (some?) of those
duties, while shirking the balance in order to protect their families (a "good" (as in, expensive)
college for the kids)… this actually comes down to sustaining their social status, in a culture
(political as well as corporate) where loyalty is valued equal to and above performance, and honorable
action is diminished, trivialized, even ridiculed; and not just within the context of the financial
industry.
This is not at all a defense of the choice, but the choice is made in a very class-stratified
social context, and arises in that general context. People take out loans to buy cars and houses,
they squirrel earnings away into investments (to avoid taxes) which they are reluctant to draw
from… they feel less ready to abandon their addictive income streams for honor, and fudge their
responsibilities. It's not isolated to regulators, or government, or even finance. It occurs so
constantly and on so many fronts that addressing specific cases doesn't make a dent in the compromise
of the entire culture. And that compromise is fueled and maintained by a very twisted set of ideas
about money, and career, and social status (not to mention compromises in journalism, education,
science, you name it).
I read Mr kidney as being very sarcastic. I could not write this with a serious sarcastic (Lawsuit
Avoiding) view:
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice
Oh really? Must have hurt. And from a legal point of view does not appear libelous.
"... Lifting of the sanctions has given a major lift to Iran's economy. Last week the IMF reported that it expects Tehran's economy to grow by 4 percent this year. Iran is making an effort to collect the oil revenues from those countries that continued to take Iranian oil during the sanctions but were unable to transfer money to Tehran. Some 6.5 billion euros are said to be owing. ..."
Iran: The Iranians are now saying that their oil production will reach
pre-sanctions levels of 4 million b/d by June of this year, up from the 3.5
million b/d they claim to have produced in March. The addition of another 500,000
b/dwithin two months is certainly faster than anybody anticipated, but some
analysts are now saying it is possible. India's Reliance Industries recently
announced a long-term oil deal with Tehran.
Among the problems Iran would have in increasing production by 500,000 b/d
in the next few months is the lack of ships to move the oil to customers, if
they can find them. Many of the worlds' tankers are tied up in massive queues
at import and export terminals that are at loading and unloading capacity. Lingering
issues about US sanctions have left some tanker owners reluctant to get involved
with Tehran for fear they could be banned from doing business with the US. Much
of Iran's tanker fleet no longer meets safety standards and must be overhauled
before visiting foreign ports.
Lifting of the sanctions has given a major lift to Iran's economy. Last
week the IMF reported that it expects Tehran's economy to grow by 4 percent
this year. Iran is making an effort to collect the oil revenues from those countries
that continued to take Iranian oil during the sanctions but were unable to transfer
money to Tehran. Some 6.5 billion euros are said to be owing.
Tehran's final problem in increasing its oil export is to find foreign investors
willing to put money into its aging oil industry. While it may be possible to
increase oil production by the 500,000 b/d that Tehran is aiming for, further
production increases will require massive amounts of investment that will have
to be raised from foreign sources. Arguments in Tehran about how much foreigners
should be allowed to profit from exploiting Iranian oil continue. Iran's latest
revisions to proposed contracts for foreign oil companies are so unfavorable
that some doubt there will be many offers.
"... Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures." ..."
Speaking last week with host Scott Horton on the Scott Horton Show, three-time presidential candidate
and former Republican member of the US House of Representatives Ron Paul discussed the military-industrial
complex's role in US militarism across the world, including in Latin America and Europe.
After Horton introduced Paul as "the greatest American hero," Paul and Horton entered a fascinating
discussion of US foreign policy. Their wide-ranging discussion concerns matters including US intervention
in Iraq and Ukraine, a potential "Brexit" - exit of Great Britain from the European Union (EU), and
Paul's preference for free trade over international trade deals that Paul says put in place "managed
trade to serve the interests of some special interests."
Addressing the influence of the military-industrial complex, Paul comments in the interview on examples
in Europe and Latin America.
Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't
think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation
for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures."
Paul also comments on the military-industrial complex when he discusses how a dispute over which
company would profit from its helicopters being used in the US government's "Plan Columbia" was resolved
by sending both companies' helicopters to Latin America for use in the drug war effort.
Listen through the end of the interview and you will hear Horton's strong praise for the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI). Paul founded RPI in 2013 after retiring from the House
of Representatives. Says Horton:
Check out the Ron Paul Institute at ronpaulinstitute.org.
They put out great antiwar propaganda all day long seven days a week - the great Dan McAdams,
Dr. Paul, Adam Dick and others there at the Ron Paul Institute, ronpaulinstitute.org.
"... This is an extract from 'Chaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East' by Patrick Cockburn, published by OR Books, price Ł18. The discount code readers can use for 15% off 'Chaos and Caliphate' is: INDEPENDENT ..."
I was sceptical from an early stage about the Arab Spring uprisings leading to
the replacement of authoritarian regimes by secular democracies. Optimistic forecasts
I was hearing in the first heady months of 2011 sounded suspiciously similar to
what I had heard in Kabul after the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and in Baghdad
after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. In each of the three cases, there
was the same dangerous conviction on the part of the domestic opposition, outside
powers and the international media that all ills could be attributed to the demonic
old regime and a brave new world was being born.
This seemed very simple-minded:
I was very conscious that these police states – be they in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia,
Syria, Yemen or Bahrain – were the product as well as the exploiters of threats
to their country's independence from abroad as well as social, sectarian and ethnic
divisions at home. Journalists, who earn their bread by expressing themselves freely,
were particularly prone to believe that free expression and honest elections were
all that was needed to put things right.
Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often
misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where
the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was
wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated
by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would
not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to
fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power
by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted
though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings
and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab
Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the
opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white
hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously
broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government
denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in
checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the
news agenda had moved on.
Whatever their other failings, the rebels ran a slick and highly professional
press campaign from their headquarters in Benghazi. Spokesmen efficiently fended
off embarrassing questions and crowds waved placards bearing well-thought-out slogans
in grammatical English in front of the television cameras.
My doubts about many aspects of the Libyan uprising, as it was presented to
the world, are open to misinterpretation. There was nothing phony about people's
anger against a man and a regime that had monopolised power over them for 43 years.
As in other Arab military regimes turned police states, Gaddafi had once justified
his rule as necessary to defend Libyan national interests against foreign states
and oil companies. But as the decades passed, these justifications became excuses
for a Gaddafi family dictatorship that stifled all dissent.
Just how claustrophobic it was to be a Libyan at this time was brought home
to me by Ahmed Abdullah al-Ghadamsi, an intelligent, able and well-educated man
whom I met by accident after the fall of Tripoli and who worked for me as a guide
and assistant. He came from a family and a district in Tripoli that was always
anti-Gaddafi, and he had been on the edge of the resistance movement before we
met. He was good at talking his way through checkpoints and winning the confidence
of the suspicious militiamen who were manning them.
We shared a feeling of exhilaration now that the old regime was gone. I remember
Ahmed saying to me with amused exasperation that "books used to be more difficult
to bring into the country than weapons". Seven weeks later, he was dead. He had
felt he must play some active role in the revolution rather than just making money,
had volunteered as a fighter and was shot through the head in the last days of
the civil war.
In the early months of the uprising, a good place to judge the rebel movement
was close to the front line in the largely deserted town of Ajdabiya, two hours'
drive south of Benghazi. Here the military stalemate of sudden advances and retreats
was very visible: in the restaurant of the local hotel waiters started to ask journalists
to pay their bills before they ate. The urgency on the part of the hotel management
reflected their bitter experience of seeing journalists – their only customers
– abandon meals half-eaten and leave, bills unpaid, because of a sudden and unexpected
advance by the pro-Gaddafi forces.
On the outskirts of Ajdabiya, rebel pick-ups and trucks, with heavy machine
guns welded to the back, rushed backwards and forwards, the speed of their retreats
so swift as to endanger any camera crews or reporters standing nearby. I had an
ominous feeling, as I drove about Ajdabiya, Benghazi and the hinterland of Cyrenaica,
that all would not turn out well. "It would take a long time to reduce Libya to
the level of Somalia," I wrote on 13 April 2011, "but civil conflicts and the hatreds
they induce build up their own momentum once the shooting has begun. One of the
good things about Libya is that so many young men – unlike Afghans and Iraqis of
a similar age – do not know how to use a gun. This will not last."
Nor did it. But it was not the militarisation of Libyans that broke the stalemate
but the intervention of Nato air forces. The shape of things to come was already
becoming clear: on 22 May I described how flames were billowing up "from the hulks
of eight Libyan Navy vessels destroyed by Nato air attacks as they lay in ports
along the Libyan coast. Their destruction shows how Muammar Gaddafi is being squeezed
militarily, but also the degree to which the US, France and Britain, and not the
Libyan rebels, are now the main players in the struggle for power in Libya. Probably
Gaddafi will go down because he is too weak to withstand the forces arrayed against
him. Failure to end his regime would be too humiliating and politically damaging
for Nato after 2,700 air strikes. Once he goes, there will be a political vacuum
that the opposition will scarcely be able to fill. The fall of the regime may usher
in a new round of a long-running Libyan crisis that continues for years to come."
By August, Gaddafi had fled and I was in Tripoli touring the abandoned palaces,
villas and prisons of the ruling family that had so recently abandoned them. I
tried not to be a professional pessimist, pointing out hopefully that, unlike Iraqis
and Afghans, Libyans had a high standard of living, were well educated and were
not split by age-old ethnic and sectarian divisions. But even this upbeat summary
concluded plaintively as I added: "All the same, I wish the shooting outside my
window would stop."
It never really did stop. Tripoli was full of checkpoints that reminded me of
Lebanon during the civil war of 1975 to 1990. The arrival of the new transitional
government from Benghazi did not fill me with confidence since one of its first
measures was to announce the end of the ban on polygamy introduced by Gaddafi.
I had periodically visited Tripoli in the 1980s and 1990s and had noticed that,
as in the oil states of the Gulf, most of the work was done by migrants from poor
countries that were Libya's African neighbours. To find out what was happening
in Libya at that time, I would go for a walk in the marketplace and fall into conversation
with bored Ghanaians or Chadians, all migrants on their day off, who would tell
me more about the real state of the country than any Libyan official or Western
diplomat.
But with the fall of Gaddafi, all black faces were regarded with suspicion by
the new rulers as likely supporters of the fallen leader. They were often accused
of being "pro-Gaddafi mercenaries", interrogated, jailed and occasionally murdered.
Life for the migrant and indigenous black population was to get steadily worse
in the coming years as Libya disintegrated, and by 2015 Ethiopian and Egyptian
Christians were being executed by Islamic State's Libyan clone. Meanwhile, the
West Europeans were reaping what they had sown by destroying the Libyan state:
migrant labourers, who had once found jobs in Libyan markets and building sites,
were now risking their lives as they sailed in over-crowded and unseaworthy boats
across the Mediterranean in a desperate attempt to reach Europe.
My fears about the "Somalianisation" of Libya, first expressed in March 2011,
had turned out to be all too true. Four years later, Libya was ruled, in so far
as it was ruled at all, by two governments, one based in Tripoli and the other
in Tobruk, while real authority lay in the hands of militias that fought each other
for power and money. Demonstrators in the streets of Tripoli were shot down by
anti-aircraft machine guns whose large calibre bullets tore apart the bodies of
protesters; Tripoli International Airport was destroyed in fighting between rival
militias; torture was ubiquitous; and the country split between east and west.
For all his quirky personality cult and monopoly of power, life in Libya under
Gaddafi had not been as bad as this. The demonisation of Gaddafi had an unfortunate
effect in ensuring the opposition had no real programme other than his replacement
by themselves.
Libyans were relieved at the end of 2011 to find that they no longer had to
study the puerile nostrums of Gaddafi's Green Book – in the knowledge that if you
failed the exam devoted to this work, you had to retake the entire course. But
Libyans also found to their horror that they had lost a haphazard but functioning
state, and with it personal security in the sense of being able to walk the streets
in safety. They were now at the mercy of predatory militiamen who were paid out
of Libya's diminished oil revenues. I remember a fellow journalist upbraiding me
politely in 2011 for stressing the failings of the Libyan rebels, saying: "Let's
remember who are the good guys." A few months later, as the revolution turned sour,
good and bad in Libya were ever more difficult to tell apart.
This was a common experience in the six countries most affected by the Arab Spring.
By 2015, three of these – Libya, Syria and Yemen – were being ravaged by warfare
and two others – Egypt and Bahrain – were ruled by authoritarian governments more
brutal and dictatorial than anything that had gone before. Only in Tunisia, where
it had all started, did an elected civilian government cling on, though increasingly
destabilised by massacres of foreign tourists by Isis training camps in Libya.
The Arab Spring had turned into the age of jihad.
"... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
"... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape
them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of
so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their
effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to
them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not
– be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that,
in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have
been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron
lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without
end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization
because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does
not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand.
Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system
which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing
less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by
the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy
and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible
fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism
(none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population
suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage
done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The
true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically
elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship
notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal
model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman
– a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment
at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic
affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic
rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition
as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the
replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative
cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market
forces.[3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim.
Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all
parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence,
the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political
power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea
of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to
altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
– which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists
of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It
must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh
not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since
corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level
playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions.
This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national
"barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that
is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless
they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The
corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete
priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being
of small enterprises and workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first
be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series
of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state
tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective
of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are
now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main
reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is
gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and
the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which
contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which
causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling
the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic
liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative
ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a
democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the
freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new
market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market
hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others
who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers
and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither
anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall
into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations
set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism
or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices
and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation
with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who
become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable,
long-term projects,
or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold,
money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover,
these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial
capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances
are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins.
The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit
economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems")
handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that
are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses
– which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The
alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false.
When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin
to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women
– a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations
now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor
without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in
the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"),
where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods
are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist
and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap
labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to
armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third
Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication
technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also
in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees
a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to
"Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen
as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European,
Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially
since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever
more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through
the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public
and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded
from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization
of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons",
and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity
or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as
the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic
efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more
or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation
of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally,
in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so
the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the
welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community
to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private,
i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by
the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into
the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the
South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system
of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23]
This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid
work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet,
commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework
becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial
benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a)
how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with
men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom"
in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the
latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism
once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist
in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing
Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution
of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom
to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The
middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the
world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the
"long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation
and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in
old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They
are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western"
– civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate
colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it
from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still
have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects
of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence.
If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there
is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining
rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention
the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants,
human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests
of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism
with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological
trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last
great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one
needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes
an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the
transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not
enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably
"wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and
everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly
towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely
total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing
what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market
as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen
without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract
wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market
for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according
to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of
such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities
where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation
implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole
in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated
machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which
today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract
wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact
that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually
or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority.
Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production
nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed
into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What
no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities,
money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying
all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources
of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they
create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism
and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties
have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate
interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community
control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata,
or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin
meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights.
They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to
the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights"
are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists"
or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually
implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future.
U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear
strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42]
The European Union did not object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy
and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War
is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be
understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy
have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially
oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples.
Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially
everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as
a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of
sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees
for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world
system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South.
An according International Law is established which effectively functions from
top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights.
And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively
and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production,
all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations
only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One
might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk
since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The
times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone
has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted
as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These
programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted
due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help
to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install
neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which
are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business
of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated.
It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through
"deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo
and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true
for the corporations only – not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between
Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the
permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the
IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil
war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans
are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The
region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the
Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed
to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit,
München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München,
DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp;
Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/
London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung
im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie,
Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot,
1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah
van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy,
Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft,
Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft,
München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September
11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective
on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology
Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen,
übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4,
2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen
und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly:
Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a.,
Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004,
Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist
View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy
of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution
in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario,
Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979;
Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich
der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha,
2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren
EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft
des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter
Lang Verlag, 2006.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und
globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia,
1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy
as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative,
2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center
for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand
im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung,
Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies,
Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic
Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict,
New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in
Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München,
DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press,
2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung
der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005:
Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen.
Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof
2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit
über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche
Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000.
"... A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone. ..."
"... Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper. ..."
"... The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns. ..."
The UN protectorate in Timor was the first full recolonisation
of former colonial territory by western powers. 25 years ago that would have been unthinkable. Ironically,
the UN in 1990 declared the 'International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism' - yet the decade
ended with 'white rule' restored in Timor. In 2002 it became nominally independent, although still
100% dependent on international aid, and in 2006 Australian troops again took control of security.
Kosovo is still a protectorate, although now with an elected parliament, and a new protectorate has
been created in western Macedonia. All these recolonisations were UN-sponsored, and that might yet
happen in Iraq. Haďti also got a new American-appointed and UN-sanctioned government in 2004. With
much less media attention, and without UN authorisation, Australia imposed a mandate on the Solomon
Islands in 2003. Last changes 16 January 2007.
The global context
Why is there now a trend to recolonisation, after a historically unique decolonisation in the
1950's and 1960's? Developments in the last 15 years have reversed western attitudes to colonisation,
well before the September 11 attacks in 2001. The most important is the strong feeling of cultural
superiority in the west, and the belief that liberal values are universal. Universality was always
inherent in liberalism, and to a lesser extent in 'democracy' as an ideology. The long-term global
expansion of liberal democracy was inevitable, in the sense that any universal ideology will expand
spatially, so long as there is no specific opposition to it. In long-term historical perspective,
recolonisation is one form that this expansion can take. However, it remains ideologically
driven - 'crusade' is a more accurate term than 'imperialism'. Tony Blair's July 2003 speech to the
US Congress was a good example of the attitude of universal superiority:
Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values
of the human spirit. And anywhere... (APPLAUSE)... Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given
the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship;
the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our
first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to
unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty....(APPLAUSE)... We must find the strength to
fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Address by Tony Blair to a joint
meeting of Congress, 17 July 2003.
In a negative sense, the reversal of the de-colonisation of the 1950's and 1960's is facilitated
by the renewed western image of non-western countries as 'barbarian', a sea of atrocities. In turn
that has facilitated the abandonment of sovereignty doctrines - states can be written off as 'failed
states' or rogue states' and invasion is then considered acceptable. In international law and geopolitics,
this led to the acceptance of interventionist doctrines by the UN, which previously emphasised the
doctrine of sovereignty. Interventionist international military strategy and tactics have been created,
to replace the traditional ceasefire-line presence of UN troops.
Inside the western countries (the potential and actual recolonisers) intervention lobbies have
emerged, typically NGO's with good access to the media. Their have origins in the peace movement
and Third-World movements, which have sometimes turned full circle from the 'anti-imperialism' of
30 years ago. As a political force for intervention, these lobbies have converged with the traditional
foreign-policy elites in western countries. This convergence was symbolised by the appointment of
Médecins sans Frontičres founder Bernard Kouchner as UN governor of Kosovo. Within the target states,
the potential colonies, a western-funded and usually English-speaking NGO elite has emerged, the
so-called 'democratic forces'. These are the kind of people who appear on CNN after a western intervention,
to express their gratitude, in excellent English.
In contrast to earlier colonial practice, recolonisation is nominally international or multi-state
- traditional colonies had one colonial power only. In practice a tendency already apparent in the
League of Nations mandates is repeated: the nearest western power plays a dominant role (in Timor,
that was Australia).
The definition of colonialism
There is a strong visual image of colonialism (often from historical films), but it is surprisingly
difficult to define it. In Europe secessionist movements often claim that their country was "colonised".
But is Scotland really a 'colony' of England? Was Slovakia really 'colonised' by the Czech-dominated
government of Czechoslovakia?
I think a colonial relationship is defined by two things:
first, there is an inequality of power
and administration,
secondly this inequality is along ethnic lines.
Colonial territories are
sharply distinct from the nation state, because they reject the classic nationalist principle that
ethnic group, citizenship, state power, and state boundaries, should all coincide.
It is this fundamental colonial relationship which was so clearly visible in Timor during the
Australian occupation. White Australian troops patrolled the streets of Dili, but the inhabitants
of Timor were not allowed to send troops to patrol the streets of Canberra, and search white Australians
for weapons. Timorese can not vote in Australian elections, or sit in the Australian parliament,
or even permanently reside in Australia - but Australian electors took decisions affecting Timor,
and will do that again after the re-intervention in 2006. There is an asymmetric exercise of power
in such protectorates, and the asymmetry is ethnic.
On this definition of colonialism, the French overseas departments (DOM) are no longer colonies.
Their inhabitants now have French passports and full citizenship: they vote in French national elections,
receive the same social security payments as in France, and are free to travel to France at any time.
When the territories were true colonies, only Europeans and a tiny 'native elite' had such rights.
No DOM status, or anything like it, is planned for Iraq. (Think of how Tony Blair would react, to
the idea of paying British benefits to the Iraqi unemployed).
The most comprehensive definition of colonialism I could find is from the
Office of Tibet site: ironically this Tibetan
government-in-exile implicitly promotes western intervention in Tibet. This is the summary from the
Introduction, there is more detail
in Chapter II: Doctrines on Colonialism
Criteria of colonialism
Establishment of Colonial Rule
Colonial rule is established in one or more of the following three ways: military conquest
and subsequent annexation; the conclusion of a treaty or contract; the creation of merchant
enclaves followed by settlement.
Colonialism always involves the migration of people from a metropolitan state to a satellite
region, but the magnitude of settlement differs from case to case.
Characteristics of Colonial Administration
The original population of the colonised territory is not, or poorly, represented in the
colonial government. The interests of the original inhabitants are largely determined by
the metropolitan, colonial power.
Colonial rule superimposes national borders. In most cases these borders do not correspond
to the local community structure(s) or to the political history of the colonised territory.
Often the territory in question had not been organized as a nation state before the advent
of the colonial power.
Economic development is planned and imposed by the colonial power and often benefits
the metropolitan state at the expense of the satellite region. Resources located in the
colony are transferred to or used for the benefit of the metropolitan state and for further
processing and marketing by that state.
Civilising mission: the colonial power undertakes to 'civilise' the original inhabitants
of a colony. The underlying presumption is that the colonial power possesses a culture/civilisation
which is superior in relation to the culture/civilisation of the colonised population(s).
In addition, the colonial power often claims that the original population of the colonised
territory is unable to rule itself for reasons of political immaturity or economic backwardness.
Cultural exchange between settlers/representatives from the metropolitan state and the
original inhabitants of the colony is asymmetrical. The latter adopt more aspects of the
culture of the former than vice versa.
Maintenance of Colonial Authority
The reactions of colonial powers to colonial resistance of colonised peoples are based on
strategies to eliminate dissent.
The maintenance of colonial authority involves a permanent military presence, consisting
of soldiers from the metropolitan state or local soldiers under the command of officers
from the metropolitan state.
The maintenance of authority is often strengthened by a policy of population transfer.
Perceptions
Colonised people(s) experience colonial rule as alien. Similarly, citizens from the metropolitan
state continue to make a distinction between themselves and the original inhabitants of
the colony.
Outcome of the Colonisation Process
Colonisation may result in one or more of the following situations: 1) decolonisation, 2)
complete take-over of the colony by the metropolitan settlement community, 3) the continuation
of colonial rule over a territory which retains most of its pre-colonial identity or 4)
integration into the metropolitan state.
None of the aforementioned criteria is essential in establishing that a certain situation
can be described in terms of colonialism . A combination of a number of these criteria is
sufficient for determining that a situation is at least de-facto colonial.
The Tibet site has an obvious bias: it is trying to avoid the 'salt-water doctrine', which says colonies
are separated from the coloniser, usually by sea. (Since Tibet borders on China, it can not be a
Chinese colony under the 'salt-water' definition). This is also an issue in defining recolonisation:
is Kosovo a 'colony' of Germany and Britain because they station troops there? I use the term recolonisation
to apply to territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but not to interventions by European
powers in Central and Eastern Europe. In historical perspective, European wars among European states
are not unusual, but the high tide of European colonialism lasted at most 200 years.
The recolonisation of Iraq
The listed features of colonialism accurately described the American-led protectorate in Iraq.
The implied scenario has however fallen victim to the insurgency, civil war, and disintegration -
the unexpected outcome of the recolonisation attempt. The 'protectorate formerly ruled by Saddam'
was established by a military conquest - in retrospect only a partial conquest. The first post-invasion
public administration was provided by the 'Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance'
(OHRA) - despite the name, a military organisation. An elite of 'internationals' was ready to descend
on Iraq - as in Kosovo - but deteriorating security made that impossible. Like so-called 'neutral'
aid workers, such 'internationals' are usually indirectly funded by western governments. Attacks
on the UN and Red Cross offices were undoubtedly related to their true geopolitical status - administrators
of an American-led occupation. Many aid organisations subsequently left.
The original population of Iraq had no political representation in the interim administration.
All real power rested with the US military, who command the other troop contingents. As their control
eroded, no clear and/or legitimate government took its place. They are the nearest thing to 'rulers
of Iraq', until they withdraw. The assemblies which drafted the Iraqi constitution were US-appointed,
and all election candidates were US-approved. Decisions were indeed made in the interests of the
western powers, until they lost control: 'economic development' meant that the single exportable
resource of Iraq - oil - was indeed be transferred to the western states.
'Civilising' the country, or 'democratising' it, as they now say, is no longer on the agenda in
Iraq. Population transfers are: under US occupation, Sunni-Arab migrants to Kurdish northern Iraq
fled south - several hundred thousand, on some estimates. Now, the rest of the population has started
to flee the country. Some people in the US foreign policy establishment want Iraq restructured as
an ethnic federation: an all-out civil war would suit their purposes. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was assembled
from the components of former empires, and could face the same 'dismemberment by bloodbath'. Whatever
the developments, most people in Iraq (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) experience the occupation administration
as alien - and the citizens of the US and Britain will continue to see the entire Iraqi population
as different, and generally inferior, to themselves.
It is the differential exercise of power which makes the recolonisation immoral. As in Timor,
there is no question of the Iraqi population being allowed any participation in the political life
of their new rulers. Although their city might be occupied by British troops, and governed by a British
administrator, they will get no vote in British elections. They will have no right to demonstrate
in London, even if they could afford to travel there. The fate of Iraq was decided by a remote and
contemptuous population, the western electorates. This is clearly unjust, and 'government with contempt'
tends to create abuses and atrocities. Iraq proved to be no exception. Now it has ended with a civil
war.
The recolonisation certainly can not be justified on the grounds of 'democracy', Tony Blair was
elected in Britain, and George Bush was elected (fairly or not) in the United States. Neither of
them ever had any democratic mandate to govern Iraq, and no political process of any kind conferred
their power there. They ruled Iraq purely by the exercise of military force, and where that force
weakened, their authority disappeared. With respect to the Iraqi population, they are just as much
a dictator as Saddam Hussein.
The recolonisation ideology
At its simplest, a protectorate in Iraq is simply 'white rule'. The whites have the military power,
they rule the natives, the natives have nothing to say - it's as simple as that. Predictably, the
natives rebelled. The worse the insurgency becomes, the more brutal the exercise of foreign power.
Things will only get worse in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ethnic inequality is likely to be repeated
in the coming years, as more countries are subjected to recolonisation. The core beliefs of the recolonisers
include a belief in the absolute truth of their own values: they reject scepticism and relativism.
They believe in the universality of these values, without geographic or ethnic limits. They have
a crusader attitude, believing that there is a moral duty to bring these values to the whole world,
by force if necessary. They see themselves as part of a morally superior movement (sometimes called
'global civil society' and they have a contempt for other values (cultural and moral). At heart,
however, the recolonisation movement is a repeat of the racism, jingoism, and imperialism of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. When it is challenged, it is likely to produce a repeat of the
decolonisation wars of the 1950's and 1960's.
British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq
finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial
rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the
Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like
slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight. The colonial precedent,
Mark Curtis, The Guardian, October 26, 2004.
A media stereotype of western intervention paved the way for the invasions of recent years. It
too is a reworked version of colonial racist attitudes: the world outside the western democracies
is presented as barbarian, and the 'native' population as either violent and oppressive (warlords,
militiamen, torturers), or as victims (refugees, children, corpses at mass graves). The victims are
depicted as passive, powerless, and incapable of independent action: a typical image is of 'native'
women weeping at a grave. In contrast, 'white' soldiers and aid-workers are presented as forceful
and active, capable of responding to the situation, as helpers (for instance bringing food). The
'native' population is not shown in active or helping roles, but as passive and grateful, usually
in a childlike way (clapping, singing, dancing). A typical image is the native population cheering
as 'white' troops enter a town. Western post-intervention reactions are in the form of measured statements
(from leaders and spokesmen).
I put the words "white" and "native" in quotation marks: many of these TV stereotypes emerged
during Balkan intervention, where all the war parties were white Europeans. All these stereotypes
were visible in western media reports from Iraq, although they were overshadowed by the battle reports
- the intensity of fighting was much greater in Iraq.
A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is
possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most
important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory
- East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some
more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not
the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation
of Sierra Leone.
Closely related to these political campaign groups, are the thousands of NGO's concerned with
the South, the possible targets of recolonisation. It is difficult to draw a clear line between the
political action groups and the NGO's - membership and activities often overlap. Collectively they
see themselves as a form of global movement, with some shared values: for this perception, terms
like 'global civil society' are used. However, the reality is that most NGO's are from OECD member
states. In fact, many of these 'non-governmental' organisations are indirectly funded by western
governments.
Intellectuals, especially academics, are also important in the recolonisation trend. Some are
only concerned with a specific territory, some campaign occasionally for specific interventions.
However the most influential are those intellectuals, who have directly attacked the concept of sovereignty.
Some of these theorists, such as Richard Falk, have being doing that for decades: they now see their
ideas adopted by the academic establishment.
Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against
sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed
to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ
from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based
liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies,
such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of
their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they
promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper.
The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist
consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic
(although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on
Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut
Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media:
especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there
are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative
to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone
shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements
of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together
with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a
background for pro-intervention campaigns.
It is too early to conclude that these groups have learned their lesson from the events in Iraq.
They may be politically embarrassed, but their underlying conviction of superiority will probably
drive them to new intervention campaigns in the coming years, and ultimately that will result in
new attempts at recolonisation.
The article reviews briefly the theory of nationalism, and introduces (yet another)
definition of nations and nationalism. Starting from this definition of nationalism as a world
order with specific characteristics, oppositions such as core and periphery,
globalism/nationalism, and realism/idealism are formally rejected. Nationalism is considered
as a purely global structure. Within this, it is suggested, the number of states tends to fall
to an equilibrium number which is itself falling, this number of states being the current best
approximation to a single world state. Within nationalism variants are associated with
different equilibrium numbers: these variants compete. Together, as the nationalist structure,
they formally exclude other world orders. Such a structure appears to have the function of
blocking change, and it is tentatively suggested that it derives directly from an innate human
conservatism. The article attempts to show how characteristics of classic nationalism, and
more recent identity politics, are part of nationalist structures. They involve either the
exclusion of other forms of state, or of other orders of states, or the intensification of
identity as it exists.
If a world order of states is so arranged that similarity within each state is maximized,
and the number of states is minimized, then that world order is a nationalist world order, and
its components are nation states. This definition does not start from the characteristics of a
nation, as many definitions of nationalism do. It starts instead from the world order,
considering the nation only in a very abstract sense. Implicitly this definition is also a
functionalist theory of nationalism, and this is expanded later in this article. The article
closes with a more speculative section on how identity politics could replace nationalism, but
continue its function.
When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to
the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for
change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals - life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness. Though we march to the music of our time, our mission is timeless.
A world of nation states is a world of states built to maintain past ideals, where change
is limited to that necessary for their survival, a world structured against 'change for the
sake of change'. Structuralism, functionalism, and voluntarism are currently taboo in the
social sciences. Yet, I think it strange to reject the clear explanations of the purpose of
nationalism, so often given by nationalists and national leaders. In practice it is often an
abdication of moral judgment on the actions of nationalists.
Before considering the relation of structure and function of nations, a brief indication
of the range of theories of nationalism. Any comprehensive review of theories of nationalism
could only be of book length (for instance
Smith, 1983). The Oxford
Reader on Nationalism (Hutchinson
and Smith, 1994) collects examples of the main theories.
It is not surprising that authors in one discipline are unfamiliar with theory in another,
or that there is overlap and duplication.
Peter Alter (1985: p. 169)
remarks that the literature can scarcely be overseen. In this fragmentation among disciplines,
a plurality of theories is at least possible. In turn, plurality of theories should give more
space for innovative theories - more than in a single recent paradigmatic discipline. (This
reverses the standard assumption, that periods of revolution in science are the periods of
innovation in science. Given fragmentation of disciplines, there might be more innovation in
'normal science' than through paradigm change.) However, in this respect nationalism theory is
a disappointment. Plurality of disciplines has not produced an equivalent plurality of theory.
Some common approaches recur across disciplines. Examples of such common features are the
tendency, to approach nationalism on a country-by-country basis, and to date it as a
phenomenon of modernity.
In any case, it is possible to give some simple (non-inclusive) categorization of theories
of nationalism:
normative theory of nationalism in political philosophy, for instance in
Walzer (1983).
theories of nationalism as political extremism. These use a definition of nationalism
common in the media: as equivalent to jingoism, ethnic hatred, expansionism, militarism, or
aggressive separatism, contrasted with constitutionalism, liberalism or patriotism (see
Connor, 1994: pp. 196 - 209).
This approach is related to 'shopping list' definitions of the extreme right (Mudde,
1996: pp. 228 - 9).
modernization theories of nationalism: these form the bulk of social science theory of
nationalism
primordialist theories, disputing the modern origin of nations
civilization theories of nationalism, often implying an ultimate global community.
Freud's (1932) comparison of
peoples with primitive organisms is a core version of such a theory of nations.
historicist theories, which take the existence of nations as given, and consider their
development (or obstacles to that development).
social-integrative theories, especially 'substitute religion' theories
state formation theories, residually explaining nationalism, usually as a product of
centralizing policy to uniformity
global system or global order theories, which do not usually consider internal
characteristics of nation states. Theory of state formation through war combines this with
the last category (for instance,
Rasler and Thompson, 1989).
This is only one categorization, and indicative only.
James Goodman (1996), for
instance, categorizes theories of nationalism into five approaches: ethno-national,
modernization, state-centred, class-centred, and 'uneven development' theories.
The first three are in the category modernization theories, A. D. Smith is the main 'primordialist'.
Gellner's academic field was the philosophy of sociology, Anderson taught international
relations, Hobsbawm is a social historian, and Smith a sociologist (notes in
Hutchinson and Smith, 1994).
Gellner's work is the most consistently theoretical: it proposes a model of the
transformation to nation states derived from economic factors:
So the economy needs both the new type of central culture and the central state; the
culture needs the state; and the state probably needs the homogeneous branding of its flock
... (Gellner, 1983: p. 140)
Anderson does not propose a derivation of this kind, but his central thesis is that
communication and media did facilitate the emergence of nations as imagined communities. For
Anderson, only face- to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an
illusion. Both of these views date nationalism as definitively modern. A. D. Smith's central
thesis is that pre-modern equivalents of nations existed - indirectly invalidating the
modernization theories. Hobsbawm's article on invented tradition appeared earlier, but can be
read as a refutation of the pre-modern origin of national tradition. Hobsbawm gives examples
of how such tradition, even the sustaining myth of nations, can be borrowed, added to, or
simply invented. (A similar work by
Bernard Lewis (1977), did not apparently have the same impact.)
The so-called resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe after 1989 brought these works
to media attention, as well as academic status. (At one time I could chose between six
different courses on them, at one university.) All of them are also very readable, with much
interesting illustration from the history of nations. No more recent work has made the same
impact, and the fixation on the themes of these authors may have limited theoretical
perspectives.
Any attempt to compress these works into one paragraph is inadequate. However, one thing
is clear: the authors have not engaged in any wide speculation about hypothetical worlds of
entirely non-national states. Nations are explained in these theories, not the absence of
non-nations. Insofar as possible alternatives are considered, these are possible continuations
of the mediaeval European order.
Most nationalism theory pays little attention to nationalism as a world order. This is
surprising, since nationalists themselves so often treat it as such. Some definitions of
nationalism are entirely particularistic:
Elwert (1989: p. 37) says that
nationalists only want a nation for themselves, not others. This is untrue: nationalists have
often wanted other nations. The classic example is Mazzini, who founded or inspired not only
Young Italy, but Young Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia and Argentina among others (Mack
Smith, 1994: pp. 11-12). Mazzini's vision was global: he saw the peoples as nothing less
then the units of humanity's army:
L'Umanitŕ č un grande esercito che move alla conquista di terre incognite, contro nemici
potenti e avveduti. I Popoli sono i diversi corpi, le divisioni di quello esercito. (Mazzini
(1860) [1953]: p. 89)
This is a metaphor, but it should emphasize the extreme universalism of nationalism.
Armies are not known for maximizing autonomy or individual will. Any listing of the ethical
claims of nationalism (the subject of a separate article) will show that nationalism can not
de derived, from Enlightenment ideas of self-determination. That was the basic thesis of
Elie Kedourie's influential
Nationalism (1960, revised 1992).
Peter Taylor (1989: p. 175)
summarizes the world as seen by nationalists, at three levels (approximately the global,
national and individual).
The world is, for them, a mosaic of nations which find harmony when all are free nation
states.
Nations themselves are natural units with a cultural homogeneity based on common
ancestry or history, each requiring its own sovereign state on its own inalienable
territory.
Individuals all belong to a nation, which requires their first loyalty, and in which
they find freedom.
This standard nationalist thought says more about nationalism than the immediate goals of
any one nationalist group. For both of these things - world view and activism - the word
'nationalism' is used. This may be confusing, but it is also misleading to split nationalism
into 'international relations' and 'internal politics', and then include secessionism in the
second category. Basque separatists in Northern Spain and South-western France want a nation
state, and are labelled nationalists: the governments of France and Spain, who have already
got a nation state, are not. There is undeniably a secessionist nationalism, with claims
against a larger state, such as those of the ETA. However, the definition at the start of this
article is intended to emphasize the global effect of such movements, and their historical
equivalence to the founders of the states they oppose. The term nationalism is used here,
deliberately, to describe both aspects of the phenomenon.
Nationalism is not a particularism. It is a universalism, a consistent vision or ideology.
Autonomy, secession, war and conquest can be compatible with a universal shared goal.
Apparently amending his earlier view of nationalism,
Peter Taylor (1995: p. 10)
described one world as 'the nemesis of interterritoriality'. However, a world of nations can
still be one world, if it is one nationalist world. The definition of nationalism used here is
intended to emphasize this universal, 'world order', aspect of nationalism. Since nations,
united nations.
The definition implies that nationalism is a substitute for a world state. If cultural
homogeneity cannot be achieved, because co-ordination over distance is not perfect, then a
strategy of co-operating local similarities is the best option. The number of cultures on
earth will be the outcome of this strategy. Later, as states form on the basis of pre-existing
ethnic or cultural groups, the number of states will also derive from this strategy. If there
are too few states, and each too large, they may become internally diverse. If there are too
many, they will differ too much among themselves. It is therefore not possible to project the
long term fall in the number of states to the point at which only one is left, as
Robert Carneiro did (1976;
see Chase- Dunn, 1990). The
trend to fewer political units seemed clear enough to Carneiro, to project a date for world
government: 2300 AD. If however, the nationalist world order is considered as a global
structure, and not seen as competing states, then there is no certainty of reaching a single
world state. If there is already such a global order, globalization does not imply the
reduction of its components to one. Instead, there is an optimum number of nation states at
any one time, within such a nationalist world order. That optimum is determined by limits of
communications, transport, and the degree of political and social organization. This number is
falling, but constraints of distance may never be eroded enough to reduce it to one. The
optimum number may in fact exceed the number of states that now exist. The many separatist
movements, the success of small states, and the fact that there are many more languages than
states, all indicate a world with many more than 185 states: perhaps closer to 1000.
That implies a change in the nature of the component states. The classic 19th century
European nation state, the basis of most definitions of nationalism, would best fit a world of
between 200 and 500 states. It is a universalism: but there are competing universalisms,
variants within nationalism. This is very clear in Europe, where these variants are used as
programmes for the whole continent. Most are serious, some are what might be called
geopolitical kitsch (Heineken,
1992; Pedersen, 1992).
Classic nationalists speak of Europe des patries, ethno-nationalists of Europe des ethnies (Heraud,
1993), regionalists of Europe of the regions (Borrп╠s-Alomar,
1994). Only in Europe are the alternatives formulated so explicitly, but these
universalist structures are implicitly global. They are ways of dividing the world:
alternatives to classic nationalism. In other words, use of similar terms at a global scale
can be expected: a world of the regions, a world of the peoples, and so on.
There is what might be called world- nationalism, associated with a single global state.
Its explicit form is world federalism, and plans to the UN into a sort of world government.
This centuries-old tradition (see
ter Meulen, 1917; van der
Linden, 1987) is represented by the work of
Richard Falk (1987; 1992) and
many others (Marien, 1995: pp. 297
- 301). It is paralleled by the philosophical tradition of cosmopolitanism (see
Toulmin, 1990), and by a
belief in globalization. (Marien's 1995 article covers a very wide range of global visions,
from New Age to neo-liberal.) Then there is inter-culturalism - the division of the world into
5 to 50 cultures or civilizations, once used in organicist versions by historians (Demandt,
1978: pp. 96 - 101), and recently revived by
Samuel Huntington (1993).
At the same scale are the pan- nationalist movements, all of them failures until now (Snyder,
1984: p. 254). Then there is classic (inter-) nationalism, the basis of the existing world
order. Next to that is ethno-nationalism (Connor,
1994; Heraud, 1993;
Tiryakian, 1985;
Watson, 1990). Although there
is no clear distinction between some 'nations' and 'peoples', the scale of the inter-ethnic
world is very different, with up to 10,000 'peoples'. It is this variant which has the
clearest demands at present, classically stated in the International Covenant on the Rights of
Indigenous Nations (CWIS, 1994).
At a similar scale is a historic-cultural-linguistic regionalism, well organized in Europe
(see Kohr, 1986;
Labasse, 1991). These regions
are often seen as units of a future federal Europe, combining regionalism with a weak
pan-nationalism. Finally although it rarely generates separatism, there is an inter-localism:
it sees the small community, the village or neighbourhood, as the only authentic unit of
social organization.
In all these variants, the possible states share four functional characteristics
(described later), and there is a global order of such states. I would emphasize that this
article is not intended to explain all aspects of nationalism, but to consider why states do
not deviate from this model.
In universal structures (functional or not) there is logically no core or periphery - at
least, not in the sense of most world system models. However, competition between
universalisms can create this appearance. Some separatist movements, for instance, defy the
expected logic of core and periphery: the Lega Nord, or Catalonian separatism.
Mansvelt Beck (1991) explains
this as an 'inverted core- periphery relationship'. This kind of explanation can be avoided on
the assumption that there is no real separatism at all. Catalonian regionalism is regionalism,
a model for the whole world, not just Spain: Basque nationalism is a manifestation of global
ethno- nationalism, and so on. The variants of nationalism are superimposed universalisms. An
ETA attack on a Spanish army barracks is, seen in this way, a clash of universalisms.
To this extent, nationalist movements cannot logically be analyzed in terms of social
movement theories. (This is an example of the formal consequences of adopting the universalist
definition used in this article). Nor can electoral support for 'nationalist parties' be
analyzed. In Britain, the Scottish National Party supports a nation state, but then so do the
Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Support for nationalism in UK elections is
consistently around 99 percent. Again, separatist sentiment is labelled nationalist, but
unionist sentiment is not. In this way, SNP support enters a different category for electoral
analysis: but this is a purely taxonomic effect.
In a similar way, a rise in the number of states may generate the illusion of power,
struggle and resistance. This may be the case, even if there is no difference of scale. All
units (potential states) might be comparable, as with Czechoslovakia, Czechia, and Slovakia.
These are all classic European nation states. However, seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia
stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the
Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of
German-language culture in Central Europe. Earlier still, German romantic nationalists had
opposed the dominance of French Enlightenment rationalist culture. All secessionist movements
are anti-hegemonic and anti-universalist, until independence day. After that they become
another's hegemonic universalism, another's 'state'. And, indeed, Slovakia has been
criticized, for its treatment of the Hungarian minority.
Logically, in a perfect order of nations, there is no dominance or 'power': everyone
co-operates a nationalist in sustaining the structure. This may however involve changing the
number of states, creating the illusion of conflict. People volunteer for military service:
that is said to prove they are willing to die for their country. It is equally logical to say
they die for the functioning of the world order. That, emphasized, in a perfect order of
nations.
This is an abstraction, true. Nevertheless, it is not such an abstraction that is has no
real effect. Conflicts do involve common reinforcement, including reinforcement of national
structure. Secession, especially, forces both sides further into their own identity. Identity
makes counter- identity (see Barth,
1969), as with Slovak and Czech. It is probably true that Czecho-Slovakia is more
nationalist since it split: it is certainly true of Yugoslavia. In this way the action of
individuals in one nation can intensify global identity, affecting the number of nations in
the process. So it is logically possible that there is no national oppression, nor national
liberation. The 'struggle' is to intensify nationalism, the world order. Inside it, to oppress
or be oppressed as a nation serves the same function. In practice, an oppressed group will say
it is a nation fighting a state: the state will say it is a nation fighting terrorists.
Another opposition recurrent in theory on nations is that between the national and the
global (see Arnason, 1990).
The nation state and national culture are being eroded by global communication - it is often
said. It is said that Internet will dissolve nations. Much the same thing was said about
satellite television, air travel, radio, the telegraph, and railways. Nation states are still
here. Yet few people are sceptical about 'globalization' (Cox,
1992; Smith, 1990), and in
a sense there is no reason to be. There is no erosion of the national by the global, but only
because there is nothing to erode. Nationalism is 100% global: a world order cannot logically
be further globalized.
The components of an order do not stand in opposition to it: certainly not in the sense
implied by the term 'globalization'. The implicit assumption is that nations are particular
entities, necessarily at a sub-global level. In other worlds, the whole idea starts from the
assumption that there is no universal nationalism. If I claim the people on the pitch at a
football match walked there by chance, and I see them playing football, then I could say they
are being 'football- ized'. In fact they went there as a group, for that purpose.
The question is why there is such enthusiasm for the concept of globalization. First, it
is in the nature of nationalism itself. The world of nations is an imperfect substitute for a
homogenous world state: it is logical for nationalists to hope it is approaching. Secondly,
the enthusiasm is in any case matched by the anti-universalist ideas mentioned above. There
are books and conferences on the coming global state, but equally on the rise of regions. It
seems possible to combine two scales of thought, for instance in cultural pan-syncretism (see
Nederveen Pieterse, 1993) or
sub-state federation (Bengoetxea,
1993). Thirdly, this is only one example of a pattern: for each of the level of scale of
nationalism, there are possible upward and downward transitions. Shifts from the
ethno-regional to the global, for instance, or from pan-nationalism to linguistic regionalism.
Only three of these possibilities are active at present:
globalism, more normative than descriptive
anti-hegemonic criticism of existing national states and their cultures, without any
territorial effect as yet. In reaction there is some new defence of the nation state,
especially in response to multiculturalism and identity politics. This applies most in
high-immigration western industrialized countries, where it is a major issue. (The U.S.A.
especially: see
Schlesinger, 1992.) In any case, more recent interest in fusion, hybridity, and
'crossing boundaries' favours pan- nationalism. Separatist identity politics seems on the
way out.
ethno-nationalism, and in Europe regionalism at the same subnational scale - which
enjoys some support within the EU (van
der Knaap, 1994).
This last is by far the most active shift. The next ten years are unlikely to see a world
government, and the US is unlikely to break up (and does not need Arthur Schlesinger to save
it): but it might see an independent Vlaanderen or Catalunya, or the definitive break-up of
Afghanistan.
The world order of nations is therefore characterized by both secession and fusion, but it
is not being 'torn apart'. It is a structure being rebuilt to function better. All these
shifts in scale merely substitute one universalism for another, all variants of one world
order. There is no dramatic fragmentation, and no paradigmatic shift to one world community.
No shift is needed.
It also follows, from the definitions used here, that a world of nation states cannot be
chaotic or anarchic. The academic discipline of international relations is influenced by the
idea of a slow progress toward the imposition of some kind of order on warring, aggressive
states, the tradition of, for instance,
Hedley Bull (1977, 1984). This
tradition concedes some 'order in the system'. However, logically there cannot be anything
else but order. A world order is by definition not disorder: international relations are by
definition 'idealist' in International Relations terms, and a national state cannot be a
Machtsstaat. So called realism models a world of aggressively competitive states - sometimes
identified with mediaeval Europe. From this a recognition of commonalities may emerge, and
states may co-operate, bringing order and peace. Those who consider this inherent or
inevitable are usually classified as idealist.
But war is not disorder: Carneiro's model, the simplest possible, demonstrates that states
disappear through 'competitive exclusion' until there is one left: there are many wars, but it
is an ordered, linear process (see
Cioffi-Revilla, 1991). The realist/idealist dispute ignores the type of state involved.
The question is not why there are so many wars between nations, but why there are so few wars
between non-nations. Not why there is ethnic cleansing, but why there is so little non-ethnic
cleansing. Not what is international relations, but why there are only inter-national
relations. Any attempt to imagine a fundamentally non-national world, should make clear how
stable the world of nations is. Nation states can apparently fight each other, without risk of
emergence of new state forms in the alleged 'chaos'.
It may seem that all this imposes a simplistic order on a complex world. However it is
nationalists who want to impose a simple structure, and they have been remarkably successful.
Of course the world order is not perfect, and states do have autonomous interests. These may
be of the kind graphically attributed to them in pre-war Geopolitik (Schmidt,
1929), or less obsessively in recent geopolitical atlases. Nations do sometimes act as
entities 'seeking access to the sea', or 'control of river basins', or resources, or
historical territories. The Schmidt-Haack Atlas maps tens of different types of claim, and
some were later used by Germany. However, if all nation states consistently acted like this,
there would be constant all-state war.
There is also the possibility that a state will turn against the world order, a real
renegade state. Usually this term merely indicates a state disliked by western policy makers:
see Dror (1971) on 'crazy
states'. A real renegade state would have to stop being a nation state: no-one speaks of
'crazy nations'. More probable is that nationalism as a universal order conflicts with other
universalisms; other world orders of one or more states, or perhaps a stateless world. The
definition of nationalism used here, defines it as a monolith with great historical
continuity. It should then react to competing monoliths, as a unit. The Greek polis is often
cited as the prototype of nations, indeed of all political community. It was also a unit
within an order of similar states. That Hellenic order may have had a proto-national identity
itself. However, as an order of city states, it was in intermittent conflict with Asian
empires. The present order of nation states covers the globe, however, so that any competing
world will be found within it.
There is at present one clear example of a competing world order: theocratic religious
universalism, of the kind promoted (in Britain) by the Muslim Unity Organization. It advocates
a world caliphate, khilafa. It is not accidental that this group operates from Britain: the
existing Islamic nation states would be the first to disappear on the road to the caliphate.
However small such groups are, they have a coherent and radical alternative not just to 'the
West', but to the whole existing world:
...there is a long and still vibrant tradition of Muslim agitation against nationalism and
the nation state. The most recent manifestation of this agitation has had Shi'i
inspiration, but there are no significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a on this
question, or between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. Feeling that Islam's decline is due chiefly
to the adoption of Western ideas and culture, all express pessimism and suggest a radical
restructuring of the world order. (Piscatori,
1986: p. 145)
A complete alternative world order is unlikely to control any territory within the world
order it rejects. It is however not adequate to consider such universalist Islamic movements
as 'social movements' within existing nation states. They cannot be accommodated within the
'public domain' of these states, as suggested by
John Rex (1996) in a
previous article in Sociological
Research Online. This has nothing to do with their immigrant or ethnic status: a Catholic
theocracy would not fit into a liberal democratic nation state either.
As long as there are nations, there will be no caliphate; it is neither a people, nor a
region, nor a nation, nor a culture. Structurally, nationalism excludes other entities from
state status. Nationalism is a blocking world order: it excludes other worlds. It is difficult
to imagine all these possible worlds from inside the world of nations, and that is part of its
success. Any attempt to imagine them will lead to apparent absurdity.
What nationalism blocks, above all, is change. The definition of nationalism as tending to
total homogeneity implies stability also. The order blocks, but not without direction. It may
well be, in itself, empty: it does not define, for instance, what language will be spoken in
the third nation east of the Rhine. That does not stop it having a purpose. If the world order
of nations (as defined here) is superimposed on a world, it will block change in time, and
exclude the alternative worlds that are possible at any point in time. That is an ethical
choice, and the ethics of nations are outside the scope of this article, as noted.
If nationalism is chosen, someone chose it. No one person invented nationalism: the most
logical 'someone' is, exactly as Mazzini suggested, humanity. There is some theory which links
the nation to the psyche: the most obvious areas of interest are self-determination (Ronen,
1979) and personal identity, sense of self (Bloom,
1990). I suggest the structure of nationalism derives from an innate human conservatism.
This is no more absurd than saying that structures of reservoirs and water supply derive from
an innate human need for water. It does not imply that all persons at all times are absolutely
conservative. (Nor does it contradict biology: change causes stress.)
How can the world order of nations answer such an innate aversion to change? First, in
that it gives a monopoly of state formation - and so of sovereignty - to nations. Not that all
states correspond exactly to one nation: again, the point is how few states correspond to
non-national entities. They do exist as historical curiosities: the Vatican, and the
autonomous Agio Oros (Athos) in Greece. Some nationalists have a horror of a state without a
nation: see Heraud's comment on the Vatican as a product of History, 'qui est violence' (1993:
p. 11). If national divisions were not dominant, there should be more of these
counter-examples. Secondly, the nation itself is past-based. Trans-generationality is a key
characteristic of nations, and found in many definitions of nation. Writing on the subjective
experience of cultural identity,
A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) names three components of shared experience: a sense of
transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny. Collapsing the
three into one gives the purpose of a nation: it exists to project the past (as collectively
remembered) into the future, as little changed as possible. Nationalists almost do not ignore
the future:
Nations are thus projects for the future and have the right to self-determination in order
to organise their future. (Bengoetxea,
1993: p.95)
However in a national world order, nations are the only entities with self-determination
and territory, and they are past- constituted. Just as with the world order, the nation is
empty but not directionless: superimpose a nation on a heritage, and it will preserve it. In
fact it will make the past into a 'heritage', one of the metaphors of possession common in
nationalism. It is logical in nations, that the past should increase its share of economy,
society and culture (see Horne, 1984;
Lowenthal, 1985), that
territory undergoes 'heritage-ization' (Walsh,
1992: pp. 138 - 147), that memory is cultural (see
Assman, 1988) and that its
preservation is a task of the state. Despite Lowenthal's title, the past is not treated as an
apart entity, but rather divided up to correspond to existing nations. The world is thus
occupied by states projecting parallel pasts into the future: there is no non-memory space, no
space which is not of the past.
Thirdly, the nations are in principle eternal, and so the nation state, and so the world
order. (Dependent territories and mandates can have a formal time limit, but this relates to a
transfer of power. Mandate territories become independent nation states, or join an existing
neighbour.) The idea of setting up a state for a limited time for a specific purpose is alien
to nationalism. The exceptions which show it is possible - for example extraterritorial mining
concessions - are curiosities in a world of nations. The projection of the past will continue.
Fourth, and most specifically, no state has ever been established for the primary purpose
of change. This logical possibility is not limited by available technology or culture - it
could have been done 1000 years ago.
Returning to the definition: there logically exists a general class of orders of states
where the boundaries are not drawn so as to maximise change. In other words, a class of
change-limiting orders, in effect change-minimizing orders. The order of nations is probably
the most effective of these. Formally, it is an order of coterminous states covering the
entire land surface, formed by transgenerational identity communities, claiming a monopoly of
state formation, and eternal legitimacy. All the scale variants of nationalism conform to this
definition.
These four functional characteristics of the nationalist world order emphasize how
different it is from other possible orders, and how it has excluded them for a long time. In
effect it has become superimposed on the world, by choice. It would be inaccurate to say it
arrived at one instant. No-one can give a definitive date for when nationalism began:
Marcu (1976: pp. 3 - 15) quotes
41 different views on the issue. Instead, a structure has been elaborated and intensified, and
the beginnings of other structures have been abandoned. Compare the five possible futures of
thirteenth century Europe suggested by
Tilly (1975: p. 26), or the
different routes to the national identity suggested by
Armstrong (1982: pp. 283 - 300).
The intensification has increased in the last 200 years, as nations become more national.
It is a property of nationalism that intensifying the national identity intensifies the
world order. Most theory of nationalism attributes this process to the state, at most to the
interaction of state and civil society:
Aprčs avoir ajusté ŕ leur échelle propre l'armée, la justice, la religion et
l'administration, ils en viennent ŕ nationaliser le marché (impôts, douanes, lois et
rčglements, poids et mesures, etc.) ŕ nationaliser l'école (langue officielle, programmes,
examens, etc.) et, de proche en proche, ŕ nationaliser encore la conscription, les services
publics, certaines entreprieses au moins (chemins de fer, postes, ports etc.) ... l'Etat
tend ŕ façonner toute la societé civile, laquelle tend, en retour, a soumettre l'Etat ŕ ses
finalités propres... (Fossaert,
1994: p. 195)
After having adjusted the army, the courts, religion and
administration to national scale, they start to national-ise the market (taxes, customs,
laws and regulations, weights and measures), to national-ise the schools (official
language, educational programmes, exams), and then to nationalise in turn, conscription,
public service, some business enterprises (railways, post, ports) ... The State forms civil
society, which in turn begins to use the State for its own goals... (Fossaert,
1994: p. 195)
The logic of nationalism however, is that this is a process of convergence driven from
below, that the national identity is exactly what
A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179)
says it is not: an average. The state is merely an instrument. Too large a state and the
convergence will be ineffective, too small and the averages will differ too much - and so back
to the starting definition. Neither secession nor conquest disturb this process in the long
run: the new nations will have their own 'nationalization', their own convergence. In other
words, even at the level of the individual state, attitudes to change can determine the degree
of national uniformity. Secession, in effect, punishes the state for allowing too much
difference in the population. This is not an abstraction: many nationalists explicitly value
homogeneous communities.
In any case, daily reality in most nations is not secession, but less spectacular
processes of emancipation. Nations are not perfect: they include minorities (or majorities)
which do not conform to the national ideal, but have no other national identity. Repeatedly,
such groups chose to integrate into the nation, rather than allow non-national secession. They
pressure the state for inclusion, and often try to adjust the national identity, through
cultural politics. Once again, there is no political-geographic inevitability in this: if
people can secede as a nation they can secede as something else. They chose not to, with some
historical exceptions. Again, the remarkable feature of the world order of nations is not the
number of secessionist movements, but the fact that all of them represent a people, or a
nation.
A good example of the intensity of this choice is the campaign of gay and lesbian groups -
especially in the U.S.A. - against the military ban on service, for 'the right to die for my
country'. It seems absurd to demand to be killed in an army which discriminates against you.
The emotions here can only be nationalist, U.S.A. nationalist: a sort of desperate desire to
be part of an identity, to conform, to belong, not to be different. This is an example of
genuine anger directed against the state, for failing to homogenize the nation. The logically
possible alternatives do not occur. Despite the influence of religion in the U.S.A., there is
no comparable demand for the 'right to die for my church', let alone any other organization.
There is also no serious secessionist movement of gays and/or lesbians despite decades of
social organization. When Cardinal Archbishop Quarracino of Buenos Aires proposed (in August
1994) a 'separate country for homosexuals', he had to publicly apologise, saying it was a
joke. He did not know, probably, of Queer Nation (Bérubé,
1991; Chee, 1991), nor that
it makes no territorial demands, despite its name.
Many processes, then, which may seem separate or contradictory, can be described in a
structure of nationalism, starting from its formal definition as a specific world order.
Integration through formalism is a characteristic of conspiracy theories: does all this imply
a vast conspiracy involving almost all humans over centuries? Not necessarily: it is possible
to generate complex structures from simple rules. The most general rule for a nationalist
world as a blocking world order would be approximately: 'if there is change, intensify
identity'. A second rule might be to intensify identity preferably by fusion or accretion, and
only if that failed, by secession. However, it is not necessary to imply a hidden formal
grammar of nationalism. People do not need one: they can reflect on what is happening, and
produce open doctrines of complex action - as did Mazzini, and other nationalist ideologists.
National identity links the individual to the world order. It has also been a central
theme in universities over the last 15 - 20 years. Especially so, in English-speaking
countries where a liberal political tradition is confronted by ethnic diversity (Rex,
1996). Some of that academic activity has an obvious link to nationalism, ethnic studies
for example. More generally, there is an interest in what might be called structures of
cultural identity, which may have a spatial or territorial counterpart.
In the US the work of bell hooks, for instance, shows a transition from marginality as a
'site of deprivation' to a 'site of resistance' to a 'site one stays in' (hooks,
1990: p. 341), which is almost a summary of secessionist nationalism. In this way
nationalist models, even of classic Mazzinian nationalism, may be adopted for identity
politics. (That is, without necessarily breaking up existing nation states.) This continuity
from 19th century nationalism to recent identity politics has yet to be researched. Even
before the First World War, the Austro-Marxist
Bauer (1907) anticipated the
model of a multicultural state, now common in political speech in western Europe. Already in
1944, Louis Adamic described
the United States as 'A Nation of Nations', and President Kennedy echoed the idea in the
sixties (Kennedy, 1964). In
contrast to Benedict Anderson's
view (1992) that multiculturalism is transitional, there is no reason why a nation state
can not be a Vielvölkerstaat, with diversity as a national value. The ultimate logic would be
to make each nation itself a microcosm of the world order: united nations of united nations.
It seems possible that use of identity can be further intensified, possibly to the point
that a non-territorial structure of transgenerational identity replaces classic nationalism.
For an example of the new politics, see the post-structuralist critique of Transgender Nation
by Newitz (1993), and other
texts at the same site. The new world order could be 'syncretic', a term from the study of
religion (see Colpe, 1987). It
could be a world order of gender pluralism, trans- diaspora cultures, trans-trans hybrids, and
other new combinations of the existing - suppressing change by the volume of diversity.
More probable is, that the parallels between the new politics and the old, will reinforce
classic nationalism. Take this (random) example: a comment on bell hooks from a recent paper
on spaces of citizenship:
In hooks's case these 'homes' entailed her grandparent's house and then the black
neighbourhoods containing this house and also her own, and the implication is that these
houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to her than 'just' sites of belonging, they were
also sites where black people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which
arose when they trespassed on white space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence
in this white space would actually be). In other words, hooks indicates something of how
black people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of white society, but
hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some
sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively black world - is made possible. (Painter
& Philo, 1995: pp. 116 - 7)
Change some names and this becomes much less friendly:
In Tudjman's case these 'homes' entailed his grandparent's house and then the Croat
neighbourhoods containing this house and also his own, and the implication is that these
houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to him than 'just' sites of belonging, they were
also sites where Croat people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which
arose when they trespassed on Yugoslav space (however legitimate in legal terms their
presence in this Yugoslav space would actually be). In other words, Tudjman indicates
something of how Croat people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of
Yugoslav society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative
locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively Croat world -
is made possible.
There is no need to reinvent nationalism, for nations have not disappeared, but some
people seem determined to reinvent it anyway. The structure of nationalism is being altered,
but its singularity and purpose are not. It remains one structure, one world order excluding
other worlds. The man who more than anyone, was the founding father of modern nationalism,
Johann Gottlieb Herder, wrote
in 1774:
Ist nicht das Gute auf der Erde ausgestreut? Weil eine Gestalt der Menschheit und ein
Erdstrich es nicht fassen konnte, wards geteilt in tausend Gestalten, wandelt - ein ewiger
Proteus! - durch alle Weltteile und Jahrhunderte hin...(Herder,
1990/1774: p. 36)
Nationalism is a Proteus, but it changes only to prevent change. Rewriting Herder in the
negative gives the judgment of nationalism: Only that which is already strewn about the Earth,
is good.
References
ADAMIC, L. (1944) A Nation of Nations. New York: Harper.
ALTER, P. (1985) Nationalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
(Translation: Nationalism (1989) London: Edward Arnold.)
ANDERSON, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
ANDERSON, B. (1992) Long Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism
and the Rise of Identity Politics. Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam.
ARMSTRONG, J. A. (1982) Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
ARNASON, J. (1990) 'Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity',
Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 7, pp. 207 - 236.
ASSMANN, J (1988) 'Kollektives Geduchtnis und kulturelle Identitut'
in J. Assmann & T. Hilscher (editors) Kultur und Geduchtnis. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
BARTH, F. (1969) Introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
BAUER, O. (1907) Die Nationalitutenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie.
Wien: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung Ignaz Brand
BENGOETXEA, J. (1993) 'L'etat c'est Fini?' in Mikael M. Karlsson,
Olafur Pall Jonsson, Eyja Margret & Brynjarsdottir Recht (editors) Recht, Gerechtigkeit und
der Staat. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
BERUBE, A. & ESCOFFIER, J. (1991) 'Queer/Nation', Out/look,
Winter, pp. 12 - 14.
BLOOM, W. (1990) Personal Identity, National Identity and
International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BORRп╠s-ALOMAR, S. (1994) 'Towards a "Europe of the regions"? Visions
and Reality from a Critical Perspective', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 2, pp. 1 -
27.
BULL, H. & WATSON, A. (1984) The Expansion of International Society.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BULL, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London:
Macmillan.
CARNEIRO, R. (1976) 'Political Expansion as an Expression of the
principle of competitive Exclusion' in R. Cohen & E. Service (editors) Origins of the
State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of
Human Issues.
CHASE-DUNN, C. (1990) World State Formation: Historical Processes and
Emergent Necessity', Political Geography Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 108 - 130.
CHEE, A. (1991) 'Queer Nationalism', Out/look, Winter, pp. 15-19.
CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (1991) 'The Long-Range Analysis of War', Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 21, pp. 603 - 629.
COLPE, C. (1987) 'Syncretism' in M. Eliade (editor) Encyclopedia of
Religion. New York: Macmillan.
CONNOR, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
COX, K. (1992) 'The Politics of Globalization: A Sceptic's View',
Political Geography, vol. 11, pp. 427 - 429.
DEMANDT, A. (1978) Metaphern fur Geschichte: Sprachbilder und
Gleichnisse in historisch-politischen Denken. Munchen: Beck.
DROR, Y. (1971) Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic
Problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.
ELWERT, G. (1989) 'Nationalismus, Ethnizitet und Nativismus - ober die
Bildung von Wir-Gruppen' in P. Waldmann & G. Elwert (editors) Ethnizitet im Wandel.
Saarbrucken: Breitenbach.
FALK, R. (1987) The Promise of world Order: Essays in normative
International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
FALK, R. (1992) Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
FOSSAERT, R. (1994) 'La Question Nationale, et Apres?', Herodote,
nos. 72 - 73, pp. 193 - 200.
FREUD, S. (1932) [1972]Warum Krieg? Gesammelte Werke XVI.
Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
GELLNER, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell: Oxford.
GOODMAN, J. (1996) Nationalism and Transnationalism: The National
Conflict in Ireland and European Union Integration. Aldershot: Avebury.
HEINEKEN, A. H. (1992) The United States of Europe: A Eurotopia?
Amsterdam: Amsterdamsche Stichting voor de Historische Wetenschap.
HERAUD, G. (1993) L'Europe des Ethnies (3rd edition). Bruxelles:
Bruylant.
HERDER, J. G. (1990) [1774] Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte
zur Bildung der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Reclam.
HOBSBAWM, E & RANGER, T. (editors) (1983) The invention of
Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOOKS, bell (1990) 'Marginality as a Site of Resistance' in Russell
Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh Minh-ha & Cornel West (editors) Out There: Marginalization
and Contemporary Cultures. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art.
HORNE, D. (1984) The Great Museum: The Re- Presentation of History.
London: Pluto.
HUNTINGTON, S. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations', Foreign
Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 22 - 49.
HUTCHINSON, J. & SMITH, A. D. (editors) (1994) Nationalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KEDOURIE, E. (1994) (Fourth, revised edition) Nationalism.
Oxford: Blackwell.
KENNEDY, J. F. (1964) [1958] A Nation of Immigrants. New York:
Harper.
KNAAP, P. van der (1994) 'The Committee of the Regions: The Onset of a
"Europe of the Regions"?', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 4, no. 20, pp. 86 - 100.
KOHR, L. (1957) [1986] The Breakdown of Nations. London:
Routledge.
LABASSE, J. (1991) 'Geopolitique et Regions d'Europe',
L'information Geographique, vol. 1, pp. 89 - 98.
LEWIS, B. (1977) History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (2nd
printing, with corrections). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
LINDEN, W. H. van der (1987) The International Peace Movement
1815-1874. Amsterdam: Tilleul.
LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACK SMITH, D. (1994) Mazzini. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MANSVELT BECK, J. (1991) 'Catalaanse zelfbeschikking versus
Madrileens centralisme: een "omgekeerde centrum-periferie benadering" nader belicht',
Geografisch Tijdschrift, vol. 23, pp. 135 - 147.
MARCU, E. D. (1976) Sixteenth Century Nationalism. New York:
Abaris.
MARIEN, M. (1995) 'World Futures and the United Nations: A Guide to
recent Literature', Futures, vol. 27, pp. 287 - 310.
MAZZINI, G. (1860) [1953] I Doveri dell'Uomo. Firenze: La
Nuova Italia.
MEULEN, J. ter. (1917) Der Gedanke der internationalen Organization
in seiner Entwicklung 1300-1800. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
MUDDE, C. (1996) 'Defining the Extreme Right Party Family', West
European Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 225 - 248.
NEDERVEEN PIETERSE, J. (1992) Globalization as Hybridization.
The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. ISS working papers, no. 152.
PAINTER, J. & PHILO, C. (1995) 'Spaces of Citizenship: An
Introduction', Political Geography, vol. 14, pp. 107 - 120.
PEDERSEN, R. N. (1992) One Europe - 100 Nations. Clevedon:
Channel View.
PISCATORI, J. P. (1986) Islam in a World of Nation- States.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RASLER, K. A. & THOMPSON, W. R. (1989) War and State Making: The
Shaping of the Global Powers (Studies in International Conflict, Volume II). Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
RONEN, D. (1979) The Quest for Self-Determination. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
SCHLESINGER, A. (1992) The Disuniting of America: Reflections
on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton.
SCHMIDT, M. (1929) Schmidt-Haack geopolitischer Typen-Atlas zur
Einfuhring in die Grundbegriffe der Geopolitik: 176 Kartenskizze zur Veranschaulichung
geopolitischer Erscheinungsformen. Gotha: Justus Perthes.
SMITH, A. D. (1983) (2nd edition) Theories of Nationalism. New
York: Holmes and Meier.
SMITH, A. D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
SMITH, A. D. (1990) 'Towards a Global Culture?', Theory, Culture,
and Society, vol. 7, pp. 171 - 191.
SNYDER, L. (1984) Macronationalisms: A History of the
Pan-Movements. Westport: Greenwood.
TAYLOR, P. (1989) Political Geography: World Economy, Nation State
and Locality. Harlow: Longman.
TAYLOR, P. (1995) 'Beyond Containers: Internationality,
Interstateness, Interterritoriality', Progress in Human Geography, vol. 19, pp. 1-15.
TILLY, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TIRYAKIAN, E. & ROGOWSKI, R. (editors) (1985) New Nationalisms
of the Developed West. London: Allen & Unwin.
TOULMIN, S. (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity.
New York: Free Press.
WALSH, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past: Museums and
Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge.
WALZER, M. (1983) Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.
"... This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. ..."
"... The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless. ..."
"... The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing. ..."
"... If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you. ..."
This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually
support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent
that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's
totalitarian approach to all issues of security. His incessant compromises
with GOP on health-care during his first year or two left us with an ACA that
is somewhat better than nothing but falls dramatically far short of what it
should have been; and the compromises were just tricks, the GOP intended to
stonewall it from the beginning.
His FCC's actions on net neutrality were essential but don't outweigh his
failings on liberty, privacy, and other issues. His failures to respond to the
Bundy family's two armed insurrections are typical of his passive afraid-of-the-backlash
approach to just about everything.
His administration is complicity embedded with the Content Ownership industry
to eliminate the fair-use exception to copyright law. The only time I've
really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter
part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless.
Only reason I don't usually air these concerns publicly is the scandalous
amount of racism and sheer hatred in the heart of the GOP's nut-job opposition.
The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe
middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they
want their donations just like the right wing.
... ... ... ...
If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested
in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate
yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the
people around you.
Let's face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival
of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land-otherwise considered sacrosanct-becomes
nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared,
panicky, or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln
arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his
authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted
a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard
of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an
executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them
native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court
endorsed the government's action by a 6-3 vote.
More often than not, the passing of the emergency induces second thoughts and even remorse. The
further into the past a particular war recedes, the more dubious the wartime arguments for violating
the Constitution appear. Americans thereby take comfort in the "lessons learned" that will presumably
prohibit any future recurrence of such folly.
Even so, the onset of the next war finds the Constitution once more being ill-treated. We don't
repeat past transgressions, of course. Instead, we devise new ones. So it has been during the ongoing
post-9/11 period of protracted war.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States embraced torture as an instrument of
policy in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Bush's
successor, Barack Obama, ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, a death by drone
that was visibly in disregard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both administrations-Bush's
with gusto, Obama's with evident regret-imprisoned individuals for years on end without charge and
without anything remotely approximating the "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment. Should the present state of hostilities ever end, we can no doubt expect
Guantánamo to become yet another source of "lessons learned" for future generations of rueful Americans.
♦♦♦
Yet one particular check-and-balance constitutional proviso now appears exempt from this recurring
phenomenon of disregard followed by professions of dismay, embarrassment, and "never again-ism" once
the military emergency passes. I mean, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which
assigns to Congress the authority "to declare war" and still stands as testimony to the genius of
those who drafted it. There can be no question that the responsibility for deciding when and whether
the United States should fight resides with the legislative branch, not the executive, and that this
was manifestly the intent of the Framers.
On parchment at least, the division of labor appears straightforward. The president's designation
as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in no way implies a blanket authorization to employ those
forces however he sees fit or anything faintly like it. Quite the contrary: legitimizing presidential
command requires explicit congressional sanction.
Actual practice has evolved into something altogether different. The portion of Article I, Section
8, cited above has become a dead letter, about as operative as blue laws still on the books in some
American cities and towns that purport to regulate Sabbath day activities. Superseding the written
text is an unwritten counterpart that goes something like this:
with legislators largely consigned
to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they
see fit.
Whether the result qualifies as usurpation or forfeiture is one of those chicken-and-egg
questions that's interesting but practically speaking beside the point.
This is by no means a recent development. It has a history. In the summer of 1950, when President
Harry Truman decided that a U.N. Security Council resolution provided sufficient warrant for him
to order U.S. forces to fight in Korea, congressional war powers took a hit from which they would
never recover.
Congress soon thereafter bought into the notion, fashionable during the Cold War, that formal
declarations of hostilities had become passé. Waging the "long twilight struggle" ostensibly required
deference to the commander-in-chief on all matters related to national security. To sustain the pretense
that it still retained some relevance, Congress took to issuing what were essentially permission
slips, granting presidents maximum freedom of action to do whatever they might decide needed to be
done in response to the latest perceived crisis.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers a notable example. With near unanimity, legislators
urged President Lyndon Johnson "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against
the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" across the length and breadth
of Southeast Asia. Through the magic of presidential interpretation, a mandate to prevent aggression
provided legal cover for an astonishingly brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia
and Laos. Under the guise of repelling attacks on U.S. forces, Johnson and his successor, Richard
Nixon, thrust millions of American troops into a war they could not win, even if more than 58,000
died trying.
To leap almost four decades ahead, think of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
that was passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the grandchild of the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution. This document required (directed, called upon, requested, invited, urged) President George
W. Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." In plain language:
here's a blank check; feel free to fill it in any way you like.
♦♦♦
As a practical matter, one specific individual-Osama bin Laden-had hatched the 9/11 plot. A single
organization-al-Qaeda-had conspired to pull it off. And just one nation-backward, Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan-had provided assistance, offering sanctuary to bin Laden and his henchmen. Yet nearly
15 years later, the AUMF remains operative and has become the basis for military actions against
innumerable individuals, organizations, and nations with no involvement whatsoever in the murderous
events of September 11, 2001.
Consider the following less than comprehensive list of four developments, all of which occurred
just within the last month and a half:
In Yemen, a U.S. airstrike killed at least 50 individuals, said to be members of an Islamist
organization that did not exist on 9/11.
In Somalia, another U.S. airstrike killed a reported 150 militants, reputedly members of al-Shabab,
a very nasty outfit, even if one with no real agenda beyond Somalia itself.
In Syria, pursuant to the campaign of assassination that is the latest spin-off of the Iraq
War, U.S. special operations forces bumped off the reputed "finance minister" of the Islamic State,
another terror group that didn't even exist in September 2001.
In Libya, according to press reports, the Pentagon is again gearing up for "decisive military
action"-that is, a new round of air strikes and special operations attacks to quell the disorder
resulting from the U.S.-orchestrated air campaign that in 2011 destabilized that country. An airstrike
conducted in late February gave a hint of what is to come: it killed approximately 50 Islamic
State militants (and possibly two Serbian diplomatic captives).
Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Libya share at least this in common: none of them, nor any of the groups
targeted, had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Imagine if, within a matter of weeks, China were to launch raids into Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan,
with punitive action against the Philippines in the offing. Or if Russia, having given a swift kick
to Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, leaked its plans to teach Poland a lesson for mismanaging its
internal affairs. Were Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin to order
such actions, the halls of Congress would ring with fierce denunciations. Members of both houses
would jostle for places in front of the TV cameras to condemn the perpetrators for recklessly violating
international law and undermining the prospects for world peace. Having no jurisdiction over the
actions of other sovereign states, senators and representatives would break down the doors to seize
the opportunity to get in their two cents worth. No one would be able to stop them. Who does Xi think
he is! How dare Putin!
Yet when an American president undertakes analogous actions over which the legislative branch
does
have jurisdiction, members of Congress either yawn or avert their eyes.
In this regard, Republicans are especially egregious offenders. On matters where President Obama
is clearly acting in accordance with the Constitution-for example, in nominating someone to fill
a vacancy on the Supreme Court-they spare no effort to thwart him, concocting bizarre arguments nowhere
found in the Constitution to justify their obstructionism. Yet when this same president cites the
2001 AUMF as the basis for initiating hostilities hither and yon, something that is on the face of
it not legal but ludicrous, they passively assent.
Indeed, when Obama in 2015 went so far as to ask Congress to pass a new AUMF addressing the specific
threat posed by the Islamic State-that is, essentially rubberstamping the war he had already launched
on his own in Syria and Iraq-the Republican leadership took no action. Looking forward to the day
when Obama departs office, Senator Mitch McConnell with his trademark hypocrisy worried aloud that
a new AUMF might constrain his successor. The next president will "have to clean up this mess, created
by all of this passivity over the last eight years," the majority leader remarked. In that regard,
"an authorization to use military force that ties the president's hands behind his back is not something
I would want to do." The proper role of Congress was to get out of the way and give this commander-in-chief
carte blanche
so that the next one would enjoy comparably unlimited prerogatives.
Collaborating with a president they roundly despise-implicitly concurring in Obama's questionable
claim that "existing statutes [already] provide me with the authority I need" to make war on ISIS-the
GOP-controlled Congress thereby transformed the post-9/11 AUMF into what has now become, in effect,
a writ of permanent and limitless armed conflict. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, what began as
a limited but open-ended campaign of air strikes authorized by President Obama in August 2014 has
expanded to include an ever-larger contingent of U.S. trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military,
special operations forces conducting raids in both Iraq and Syria, the first new all-U.S. forward
fire base in Iraq, and at least 5,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground, a number that continues
to grow incrementally.
Remember Barack Obama campaigning back in 2008 and solemnly pledging to end the Iraq War? What
he neglected to mention at the time was that he was retaining the prerogative to plunge the country
into another Iraq War on his own ticket. So has he now done, with members of Congress passively assenting
and the country essentially a prisoner of war.
By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant
of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom, and for what purpose
the United States should go to war. Nothing now remains but to pay the bills, which Congress routinely
does, citing a solemn obligation to "support the troops." In this way does the performance of lesser
duties provide an excuse for shirking far greater ones.
In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It's called cowardice.
"... Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia, killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight. ..."
"... Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear. Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim. ..."
"... The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia spends. ..."
"... If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom" is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this "Freedom" on people ? ..."
"... NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell. ..."
"... The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival. ..."
Just typical propaganda to justify endless billions for a nonexistent threat. ,you have to be
a brainwashed neocon idiot or have stock in defense corporations or likely both to believe Russia
has any interest in invading anyone. How would we feel if Russia moved missiles and troops to
our borders?
You should be use to it by now since all of your former allies have either joined NATO or want
to join NATO as protection against Russia.
You see - we actually don't have to do anything to convince nations to work with us - we just
let Russia act the way it normally acts and the rest falls into place.
I'm fond of saying that Putin is our best man in Russia. We couldn't ask for a better ally
in helping us dismantle Russia.
Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia,
killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a
wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl
Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight.
You are right and Georgia was armed and trained by US and instigated by US to attack Russia and
what happened it took Russia 5 days to defeat the well armed US backed Georgians and this is an
indicator how the US will fare against a war with Russia - FULL RETREAT
Brian you really don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever have left your neighborhood
let alone the state. You talk down about Russia and how great the American military is. But then
again like all talk it is just talk. In a real war Russia has many more nukes then we do. They
kept their nuclear program up while ours has fallen. Should a real war happen all you will see
Brian is flashes of of light everywhere and that will be the end. GET IT WAKE UP !!!
Without firing a shot? Apparently, you missed the right sector snipers in the Hotel Ukraina, the
Azov battalion civilian massacres in Mariupol and the Odessa holocaust, eh?
But we know, you loved every bullet of it. Psychopaths are as psychopaths do.
And BTW, speak for yourself. This 'we' thing is delusional. If 'we' met, you'd understand that
quick enough.
The Russians brought it upon themselves with their history of bullying...
Your neighbors will continue to hate you, and we don't need to do anything about it.
I'll be happy to send a donation to Ukraine so they can buy more defensive weapons - the more
Russians that invade their land, the more body bags they can send back to Russia.
The Ukrainians brought it upon themselves, sir. You obviously share in that endearing Ukrainian
trait to blame everyone but yourself for the consequences of your actions. Next time, try to keep
your banderite fascist ideologues at bay and maybe you'll learn something about those 'European
values' that Poroshenko seems to like to lecture the Europeans about, if that ain't a hoot in
itself.
What just happened in Syria?
What about the untraceable subs Russia has that can knock out our aircraft carries easily? PS:
Iran has one and we lost track of it shortly after they purchased it from Russia.
What about the large number of nuclear weapon Russia has and has used this threat in an offensives
manor lately?
Are you the type of person who leaves his front door unlocked when you go to work?
Just type up your SS#, Credit Cards, and Name for us please...along with you address since you
do not believe in preventive measures to safeguard yourself.
The untraceable diesel electric are very short range by ocean going standard AND become more visible
it they need to approach the target (The hope to submerge, sit and have a vessel pass very close).
The Baltics and Poland should take an example from Finland. Finland has managed to avoid conflict
with Russia, without any help from the U.S. or NATO. Threats of imminent Russian invasion are
fairy tales.
Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear.
Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The
purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will
be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim.
MY CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOU OPINION WHICH IS MY OPINION. I AM A PROFESSIONAL ARMY OFFFICER. YOUR
OPINION IS THE CORRECT AND THE REAL ONE. ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHATEVER STRENGTH AND KIND
OF TROOPS OR WEAPONS NATO MIGTH HAVE WHEREVER... WITHIN EUROPE IS SIMPLY SILLY...
I THINK ANY ARMY OFFICER KNOWS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD... SO EITHER ALL THIS SHIT AROUND WHOM, WHAT
AND WHERE TO DEPLOY MILITARY POWER TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IS JUST TO HAVE THE STUPID EUROPEANS SPENDING
MORE MONEY BUYING USA WEAPONS OR IF NATO BELIEVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING... THEN THE GENERALS IN
CHARGE ARE JUST DONKEYS ... AND I APOLOGIZE TO DONKEYS... OF COURSE ANY VERY FIRST MILITARY ACTION
FROM RUSSIA EITHER TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A NATO/ USA ATTACK OR TO CARRY OUT A PRE EMPTIVE ATTACK
WILL BE IMMEDIATELY NUCLEAR... MORE THAN THAT IT WILL BE GLOBAL.... NOT ONLY AGAINST EUROPE...
THE MAIN TARGET WILL BE USA AND ITS MILITARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD... AND OF COURSE EUROPE...
SO CONVENCIONAL MILITARY MEANS IN SUCH A CONTEXT THEY SHALL BE BASICALLY TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT
ABLE TO OPERATE IN A NUCLEAR AND NBQ ENVIRONMENT.
Russia wouldn't have to go nuclear to defeat Europe, so if it does go nuclear, it will be the
US that pushes the button.
As the Russian army would be in Europe, the US would nuke Europe.
"Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into NATO was an incredibly stupid move."
I disagree. Americas' Principles have always stressed spreading Freedom & Liberty as far as
possible. Where "we" Americans went wrong was not electing leadership who understood this principle.
I can agree with the Far Left on one thing: Europeans need to bring their military strength
back up. It's obvious that my country (USA) is headed down a path of isolationism. A pity, really.
Has the Europeans learned to value each other as equals...... or will ancient rivalries tear them
apart?
The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent
by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia
spends.
If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic
amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom"
is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this
"Freedom" on people ?
If I invent something that people want -- a better mouse-trap, say -- do I have to bomb people
into buying my product? Do I have to use "police" armed with tanks and machine-guns to round people
up and force them into the store where my mouse-trap is sold?
Real freedom is something that sells itself. Freedom is something to live for, not something
to kill and be killed for. We develop freedom by exercising our rights, not by turning other countries
into rubble!
NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what
is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell.
Freedom & Liberty via bombs in invasion! Democracy only when US puppet will win otherwise regime
change like in Syria and in the past many other countries
your reply is silly and stupid. Principles never won anything. You are one of those pedantic liberals
who think we (but, of course, not you) need to save everyone. Reality says most would rather give
up than fight themselves.
I agree with principles (They should not be underestimated!) however I think as Americans we are
going to have to be a bit more pragmatic going forward.
The politicians prefer the U.S. to Russia, perhaps. But I'm not sure that the same can be said
of the people.
A referendum on the future of the Soviet Union was held on 17 March 1991. The question put
to voters was: "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom
of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
Russia SFSR:
Choice .......... ------Votes . -----%
For .............. 56,860,783 .. 73.00
Against .......... 21,030,753 .. 27.00
Invalid ........... 1,809,633 ...... -
Total ............ 79,701,169 . 100.00
Reg., Turnout ... 105,643,364 .. 75.44
A similar referendum was held 22 years later, by Gallup. In the
2013 Gallup poll , people in countries formed by the Soviet dissolution said, by a two-to-one
margin, that they were worse off than before the Soviet break-up .
But it doesn't matter, of course, what the people think. The "West" -- the U.S. Empire -- decided
that the Soviet Union was bad, and the rulers/bankers/gangsters of the "West" know what is
best for everyone everywhere . That's because the rulers/bankers of the U.S. Empire are Exceptional,
Enlightened and Inherently Superior. They were Born Without Sin, their intentions are Pure and
Holy, and they Know More Than God.
It was foolish. How did Finland survive as a neutral country? If anyone had any justification
for joining NATO after WWII, it was certainly Finland, yet it prospered undisturbed, even benefiting
from Russia trade.
The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks
them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival.
"... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
February 22, 2016 |
FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how
the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program
says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is
6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the
Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag
Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah
al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary,
offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across
the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.
The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya
in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist
Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we
are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a
risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that
"Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then,
as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's
very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."
Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International
Crisis Group
concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports
that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything
remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"
Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did
not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness
to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment,
and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy.
This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want
to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter
whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain
is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel
they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer
West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.
Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through
his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's
office
issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS,
there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground
who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS
did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to
the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful
thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the
Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups
might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists.
Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum,
writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed
to unite, despite years of war."
Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over
impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General
Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."
"... When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated the lies without hesitation. ..."
Last week Defense Secretary Ashton Carter laid a wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington
in commemoration of the "50th anniversary" of that war. The date is confusing, as the war started
earlier and ended far later than 1966. But the Vietnam War at 50 commemoration presents a good opportunity
to reflect on the war and whether we have learned anything from it.
Some 60,000 Americans were killed fighting in that war more than 8,000 miles away. More than a
million Vietnamese military and civilians also lost their lives. The US government did not accept
that it had pursued a bad policy in Vietnam until the bitter end. But in the end the war was lost
and we went home, leaving the destruction of the war behind. For the many who survived on both sides,
the war would continue to haunt them.
It was thought at the time that we had learned something from this lost war. The War Powers Resolution
was passed in 1973 to prevent future Vietnams by limiting the president's ability to take the country
to war without the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration of war. But the law failed
in its purpose and was actually used by the war party in Washington to make it easier to go to war
without Congress.
Such legislative tricks are doomed to failure when the people still refuse to demand that elected
officials follow the Constitution.
When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered
the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the
world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once
and for all."
They may have beat the Vietnam Syndrome, but they learned nothing from Vietnam.
Colonel Harry Summers returned to Vietnam in 1974 and told his Vietnamese counterpart Colonel
Tsu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield." The Vietnamese officer responded, "That may
be so, but it is also irrelevant."
He is absolutely correct: tactical victories mean nothing when pursuing a strategic mistake.
Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war
on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was
a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated
the lies without hesitation.
Like Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq war was a disaster. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the war
and as many as a million or more Iraqis lost their lives. There is nothing to show for the war but
destruction, trillions of dollars down the drain, and the emergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Sadly, unlike after the Vietnam fiasco there has been almost no backlash against the US empire.
In fact, President Obama has continued the same failed policy and Congress doesn't even attempt to
reign him in. On the very anniversary of that disastrous 2003 invasion, President Obama announced
that he was sending US Marines back into Iraq! And not a word from Congress.
We've seemingly learned nothing.
There have been too many war anniversaries! We want an end to all these pointless wars. It's time
we learn from these horrible mistakes.
You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent
profile on you and stores it at their end. They use a variety
of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every
other bit transmitted on the internet and linking it to a
database they have built that records your popular searches and
clicks.
This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty
internet searches. A clean search would see actual societal
interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the
State narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data
that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence community".
They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical)
Big Data to create a precrime division. It's also nice to have
dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and
challenges the aristocracy.
I am "not isolationist, but I am 'America First,'"
Donald Trump told The New York times last weekend. "I like the expression."
Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls
this arrangement
"unfair, economically, to us," and adds, "We will not be ripped off
anymore."
Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities.
But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments - especially
NATO.
For the Donald's ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance:
"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been
returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."
As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the
president-elect on NATO.
"Eisenhower told his successor it was time to start bringing the troops home from Europe. 'America
is carrying far more than her share of free world defense,' he said. It was time for other nations
of NATO to take on more of the costs of their own defense."
No Cold War president followed Ike's counsel.
But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.
The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when
the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.
Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.
Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees,
to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union.
In a historically provocative act, the U.S. moved its "red line" for war with Russia from the
Elbe River in Germany to the Estonian-Russian border, a few miles from St. Petersburg.
We declared to the world that should Russia seek to restore its hegemony over any part of its
old empire in Europe, she would be at war with the United States.
No Cold War president ever considered issuing a war guarantee of this magnitude, putting our homeland
at risk of nuclear war, to defend Latvia and Estonia.
Recall. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Lyndon Johnson did
not lift a hand to save the Czechs, when Warsaw Pact armies crushed "Prague Spring" in 1968. Reagan
refused to intervene when Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, on Moscow's orders, smashed Solidarity in 1981.
These presidents put America first. All would have rejoiced in the liberation of Eastern Europe.
But none would have committed us to war with a nuclear-armed nation like Russia to guarantee it.
Yet, here was George W. Bush declaring that any Russian move against Latvia or Estonia meant war
with the United States. John McCain wanted to extend U.S. war guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine.
This was madness born of hubris. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia's
front porch was America's greatest geostrategist, the author of containment, George Kennan:
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold
War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly
not to our liking."
Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as we treated other nations that repudiated
Leninism, we created the Russia we feared, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
The Russian people, having extended a hand in friendship and seen it slapped away, cheered the
ouster of the accommodating Boris Yeltsin and the arrival of an autocratic strong man who would make
Russia respected again. We ourselves prepared the path for Vladimir Putin.
While Trump is focusing on how America is bearing too much of the cost of defending Europe, it
is the risks we are taking that are paramount, risks no Cold War president ever dared to take.
Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and
Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military
clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores
of nations on five continents?
Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world
that disappeared around 1991.
He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only
when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled.
And when we agree to defend other
nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider
is over.
Trump's phrase, "America First!" has a nice ring to it.
Trumps statements are true, but don't go far enough.
Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, there is
no reason for NATO to exist, or especially for us to be
a part of it. We gain nothing except the promises to go
to nuclear war with Russia, even over a shitshow country
like turkey, who shot down a fucking Russia plane.
It would also be interesting to see what happens to
the welfare states of Western Europe if they were forced
to pay for all this shit, or the US left all together.
Surely Trump is not so stupid to believe that we are being "had"
by the Europeans in regards to the collective NATO defense budget?
Surely he understands NATO is merely a captive audience for arms sales
ex USA?
Surely he understands that by paying "more than our share" we
are utilizing it to push a fucked up agenda abroad with the complicity
of those who are "not paying their share"?
In a manner of speaking he's right. Other countries don't pay their
fair share of the expenses. However,
the size and scope of what
exists now is orders of magnitude TOO BIG. So everyone else shouldn't
pay more, the US should scale back and spend WAY less.
That is what will get someone killed. Scaling back at all and therefore
costing any private predatory military supplier / contractor money..
Something extraordinary has taken place in the last few weeks.
More and more old-time Republican stalwarts and leaders have
laid their voices bare, if not defending Donald Trump, then for certain
excoriating the three decade long NeoLib/NeoCon pact that is strangulating
American sovereignty and paving the way for a NWO. Paul Craig
Roberts, as always, was perhaps the first. But now David Stockman
(Reagan's Budget Director), Peggy Noonan (Reagan's speechwriter), Patrick
Buchanan (another Reaganite and erstwhile Republican curmudgeon), Robert
Bennett (Reagan's head of the Department of Education), and perhaps
many more that I am not aware of are coming out of the closet.
It is almost as though Trump's 'take-no-prisoners' ethos, and
getting away with it and media and political correctness be damned,
is actually creating enough breathing space for others to say what's
been on their mind but have been too frightened to speak out about.
Well spoken, known, and credible voices are pushing back.
This could be a snowball careening downhill turning into an avalanche.
If enough of these folks keep emerging from dark corners they could
well provide Trump with a political phalanx that diminish the probabliity
of something as outrageous as stealing the nomination or even assassination.
One thing is for certain. A civil war is taking place
already, and its in the Republican Party.
NATO? The USA and European nations cannot even protect
their borders from invasion. End NATO. It is only good for
genocide against small unarmed countries.
"... This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program. ..."
"... So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. - who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI. ..."
"... The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its peak in Europe during the 1970's. ..."
Words always fail to speak to the human tragedy component of yesterday's 'terrorist' attacks, and
my words cannot adequately address them either.
Moreover, it seems in poor judgment to specifically lament over one criminal tragedy, when such
criminal tragic events are so rampant around the world, and are often the product of US-NATO
operations globally.
The terrorist attacks in Belgium are a direct part of US-NATO's plans to perpetuate war and
instability, and destabilization anywhere that the US senses hesitation to fully support its
plans.
I have not yet seen evidence that the individuals who pulled off these attacks have any
connection to any of the named or known 'terrorist' networks. What I have read so far as a
Kurdish media sources claiming that ISIS had claimed responsibility.
For those linking these attacks to the known and documented ISIS/FSA members/soldiers that have
now decided to seek 'refuge' in Europe from the way which they created, I would say that while it
is possible that any such individuals who came as refugees in the recent wave could have been
used in these attacks, such assets already existed and lived in Europe for an indeterminably long
time.
There is a link, however, between the 'refugee' crisis and these terrorist attacks, - and that is
that these are both components of the general destabilization of the middle-east and now, Europe.
From a sociological and strategic point of view, it is difficult to imagine that such
'reverberations' were not foreseen, and therefore expected, and as such perhaps even viewed as
desirable by the powers that be. Which powers that be do I speak of?
This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy
of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military
intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program.
It is unlikely in my view that ISIS, in the meaningful sense of the term, was behind this.
Terrorist attacks such as this have a purpose for actual terrorist groups when they are linked
with demands, a quid pro quo, release of prisoners, or some change in policy, recognition, or
even a cash payment. They come after general warnings, and some inability of the terrorist group
to get its demands met.
At the same time we have another 'ISIS' or, if you will, Al Qaeda - as a western intelligence and
operations program designed to attack targets designated by their US/NATO handlers.
So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug
addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf
monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and
security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. -
who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI.
These 'random' attacks serve no tactical purpose for an actual terrorist group in my view, and
only increase the chances that European voters or citizens will support some action, direct or
kinetic, against ISIS. So this does not serve ISIS's interests.
The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last
year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its
peak in Europe during the 1970's.
Then, as perhaps now, the goal was to push European citizens/voters into a hostile position
against a generally described 'enemy' - then communism, today 'Islamicism/Islamism'.
"... I have grave reservations about the alleged spare capacity of Iran. The assumption is that the big, bad sanctions resulted in a huge drop in Iran's oil production. I am not buying it. I think the sanctions were a joke. For starters many nations refused to take part in the sanctions. Nations like India, china, japan and South Korea for starters. It would not be difficult to then reexport this oil to the rest of the world on the sly. Would you please comment on this important matter. Does anyone have any inside information about this? nuassembly 20 Mar 2016, 11:25 AM Comments (13) | + Follow | Send Message Agree, most of us follow news as herd effect, but devil is in the detail. Before the sanction, Iran was export 2.5 million barrels of oil per day but had to import almost 0.5million barrels of processed fuel, gasoline and diesel. ..."
"... Now, 4 years after the sanction starts, Iran already built up the refinery capacity, so it will no longer need import of refined fuels; instead it will be exporting, how much is yet to be decided. So, right there, we will see over 0.5 million barrels of reduction in the oil to be exported from Iran. Yes, the sanction reduced the Iranian oil export from 2.5million to 1.5million per day, but the net effect after sanction now will be less than 0.5 million per day to the world market. ..."
I have grave reservations about the alleged spare capacity of Iran.
The assumption is that the big, bad sanctions resulted in a huge drop in
Iran's oil production. I am not buying it. I think the sanctions were a
joke. For starters many nations refused to take part in the sanctions. Nations
like India, china, japan and South Korea for starters. It would not be difficult
to then reexport this oil to the rest of the world on the sly.
Would you please comment on this important matter. Does anyone have
any inside information about this?
Agree, most of us follow news as herd effect, but devil is in the detail.
Before the sanction, Iran was export 2.5 million barrels of oil per
day but had to import almost 0.5million barrels of processed fuel, gasoline
and diesel.
Now, 4 years after the sanction starts, Iran already built up the refinery
capacity, so it will no longer need import of refined fuels; instead it
will be exporting, how much is yet to be decided. So, right there, we will
see over 0.5 million barrels of reduction in the oil to be exported from
Iran. Yes, the sanction reduced the Iranian oil export from 2.5million to
1.5million per day, but the net effect after sanction now will be less than
0.5 million per day to the world market.
40 years, I would be surprised if you didn't have reservations. You aren't
the only one. Iran's infrastructure wasn't that great before the sanctions
so I would guess they are abysmal now.
I don't think they can get to 4 million this year, but the problem with
that is I am speculating so we will just have to track its exports and see
what happens. Right now, I think it would be ok to reduce that number by
400K BO/d.
I think the biggest issue is Iran thinks its possible, so maybe there
is something going on we haven't thought about. Probably not, but it is
still something to consider. I wasn't a big fan of the sanctions either,
but some politicians would say they worked. I think it is very possible
to re-export the oil the only problem is the very large volumes Iran can
produce. If this was a small producer it is probably easy if you sell it
cheap enough (like ISIS does).
The US government always subscribed to Al Capone maxim "You can get much farther with a kind word
and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. ". Bu now this allegiance took slightly more sophisticated
form.
Notable quotes:
"... We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag. ..."
"... The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage. ..."
"... Granted, the NYT does provide a view into the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ... ..."
"... more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass. ..."
"... U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers of staff. ..."
"... Beware of Yanks bringing democracy Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear ..."
"... institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government, with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs. ..."
"... by Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger - July 17, 2005 ..."
"... Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the (Inter)national Democratic Institute . ..."
"... IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, associated with the two political parties. ..."
"... The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department ..."
"... The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers, and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one, and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other. ..."
"... US 'democracy loving' spies out! ..."
"... GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an obvious infringement of national sovereignty. ..."
"... Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to them. ..."
"... Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure. ..."
"... Biden Jr's resume is unsurprisingly sprinkled with Ivy-league dust - he is on the Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute , a director for the Center for National Policy and the US Global Leadership Coalition comprising 400 American businesses, NGOs, senior national security and foreign policy experts. ..."
"... Former US President Bill Clinton appointed him an Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy and he was honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural Committee. ..."
"... perpetuum mobile ..."
"... How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age ..."
"... Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \ ..."
MOSCOW - A nonprofit group that promotes democracy has become the latest American-linked group
to be banned in Russia under restrictions on "undesirable" organizations signed into law by President
Vladimir V. Putin in May.
The office of Russia's prosecutor general on Thursday outlawed the group, the National Democratic
Institute, claiming in a statement that the it posed "a threat to the foundations of Russia's
constitutional order and national security."
The above quoted NYT piece studiously avoids to describe what the "pro-democracy nonprofit" really
is. There is no mention at all of its sources of money or its relations to non-Russian governments.
The National Democratic Institute, a group promoting democracy and civil society, had operated
in Russia directly since the late 1980s, but it decided to close its offices there in 2012, according
to its website. It has continued to establish programs in Russia through partner organizations,
however. Madeleine K. Albright, an former United States secretary of state, is its chairwoman.
When asked about U.S. sanctions against Iraq Madeleine Albright once
said (vid) that 500,000
killed Iraqi children were "worth it". Any organization led by here must surely be a morally good.
But who pays it? And what for?
To know what exactly this "nonprofit" is, is certainly relevant to understand the Russian position.
But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed organization.
It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit organization".
The NDI has been involved throughout the years
in dozens of right-wing "regime change" coups . Its direct parent organization
is the U.S. National Endowment of Democracy:
The private, congressionally funded NED has been a controversial tool in U.S. foreign policy because
of its support of efforts to overthrow foreign governments. As the writers Jonah Gindin and Kirsten
Weld remarked in the January/February 2007 NACLA Report on the Americas: "Since [1983], the NED
and other democracy-promoting governmental and nongovernmental institutions have intervened successfully
on behalf of 'democracy'-actually a very particular form of low-intensity democracy chained to
pro-market economics-in countries from Nicaragua to the Philippines, Ukraine to Haiti, overturning
unfriendly 'authoritarian' governments (many of which the United States had previously supported)
and replacing them with handpicked pro-market allies."[2]
NED works principally through four core institutes: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), and the Center for International Private Enterprise-representing,
respectively, the country's two major political parties, organized labor, and the business community.
To call the NDI and its brothers and sisters non-government organization is obviously wrong. To
call them "pro-democracy" is only right when one has some fondness for the peculiar kind of "democracy"
in foreign countries that sets U.S. business interests above the interest of its own people.
What the Russian prosecutor general kicked out of Russia is obviously a U.S. government organization.
The NDI was acting clandestinely by secretly financing local groups in Russia which work against
the duly elected Russian government and against the interest of the Russian people.
But the petty-minded NYT, with its slavishly U.S. centric view, can not allow its readers to learn
such facts.
We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream
understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag.
The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage.
It is often quoted by authors such as this one, PCRoberts, Vltchek, the Saker, etc., to make a
point ... but is otherwise useless as information. Granted, the NYT does provide a view into
the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating
that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ...
thanks b.. more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other
sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass... we
don't have it here in canada..
plutocracy is encouraged instead.. the russians are smart to not allow this kind of bs to enter
the pic.. take george soros and tie him up.. that would be a better example of democracy in action..
"Nest of spies" is the correct term for all such organizations.
Russia, and any other country interested in preserving its autonomy, would be crazy to permit
any outside funded organization whose raison d'etre is subversion.
In fact the members of such organizations when operating clandestinely through front organizations
should be subject to arrest and prosecution.
Another thing: U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and
subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional
ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies
by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers
of staff.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts (especially if you live in Troy) Beware of Yanks bringing democracy
Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear
Good catch, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the NYT as "petty-minded".
It's a semantic cavil, perhaps. I think that an argument can be made that any pejorative
term applied to the NYT poobahs... er, fits.
But I refer you to the Gospel of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, who masterfully demonstrated
that institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government,
with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs.
"Petty-minded" implies that the NYT publisher/editors choose to withhold or distort the truth
out of a sort of personal-- perhaps aristocratic-- pique. It's way worse than that; it's a calculated
"business" decision to further their above-cited consent-manufacturing function.
All that said, you could've gone with "evil-minded".
Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were
briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States
and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to
Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the
(Inter)national Democratic Institute
.
In December 2004, IRI contracted with Tony Marsh and Lance Copsey of the media consulting
firm Marsh, Copsey & Scott to set up a Baghdad Media Center on behalf of the U.S. State
Department. Its stated purpose was to assist Iraqi political parties and candidates in the
upcoming January elections.
Earlier that year, in January 2004, Marsh Copsey & Scott (now Marsh Copsey & Associates)
had registered the domain name crushkerry.com , which was used throughout the 2004 election
for an anti-Kerry blog run by their senior account executive,
Patrick Hynes
. The site was heavily involved in promoting both the SwiftBoat Veterans and
CBS Memos stories . It also encouraged readers to suggest other ways of discrediting John
Kerry, and claimed to have inside sources of information on the Kerry campaign.
Outsourcing regime change
IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight
Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment
for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake
directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what
we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation
of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute,
associated with the two political parties.
Native speakers of English would not say that the New York Propaganda Crimes is not "petty minded"
in the sense of being vindictive but "small minded" in the bland way it makes its report and leaves
it there, in the manner of bureaucrats or those who fulfill the minimum work tasks required of
them and then do no more.
The fact that former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a chair of this National Democratic
Institute probably tells most people with a triple-digit IQ all they need to know and then they
can go away and do their own research.
Incidentally that NYT report was filed by Ivan Nechepurenko who writes for The Moscow Times
(a pro-US newspaper) and who has worked with the Carnegie Moscow Center, another NGO that the
Kremlin should be fixing its sights on.
Comment on previous Obama Doctrine Whitewash thread Geoff # 106 Mar 11, 2016 1:56:01 2016 1:56:01
PM
"The only thing good about the political class perhaps, is that on the whole they keep the
rest of us moving, while simultaneously holding back a better future. Without their class, however,
perhaps we would propegate unimpeded and run out of food supplies."
Geoff,
This is the type of dystopian logic that is utilized at West Point and other War Colleges that
allows them to Manchurian Candidate drone pilots so they can mass murder brown people without
blinking an eye.
For many, if they didn't read about it in the NYT or saw it on Fox news then it never happened.
Combine enough of those missing ITS together and one can see what flavor of reality is being fed
to those that believe the myth of the last sentence.
Its the old Faith thingy, it works until it doesn't. Faith in America is not on the upswing
and is quite close to the tipping point on numerous fronts, ME politics, private finance (Fed,
IMF & World Bank), US Manifest Destiny, etc.
I am encouraged to recently hear David Draiman's (Disturbed) cover of 'Sound of Silence'. I
don't care about his background. I just want to note that, IMO, he upped the in your face aspect
of the message.... ".....People bowed and prayed, to the neon Gods THEY made...."
Just like what happened in Chicago yesterday with shutting down the Trump rally, the energy
level of the complacent is rising.
" ...the energy level of the complacent is rising" is an assumption that cuts both directions.
While it certainly is possible that Americans in general want change, I suspect that what many
want is really a return to the 1950's when the assumption was that we were the winners of a recent
war ... despite the fact that only a few hundred thousand Americans lost their lives defeating
the Japanese and Germany while China lost about 15 million, and the Russians lost around 25 Million.
WWII was simply a war between fascists and not a war against fascism.
The carpet bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, or the threat of being "Hiroshima'd" or "Nagasaki'd"
was the only real post WWII threats we had, and there was really no question we would use them
again.
It is really too bad that the best we Americans stand for is to be oblivious to the real issues
faced by the rest of the world so long as our plutocrats and oligarchs allow us to have some of
the benefits of world domination. /a>
The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the
Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually
repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department:
These were apparently modeled on the CIA's efforts, organizations it had founded or subverted
in Germany, during the US' administration of West Germany after WW II:
It amazes me that any nation allows such blatant, political organizations, sponsored from abroad,
to operate within its borders, but ... money talks.
The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers,
and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one,
and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other.
But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed
organization. It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are
a "nonprofit organization".
Posted by b on March 12, 2016 at 12:03 PM
Nailed it, b!
The United States Of AmeriKKKa's raison d'ętre in two short sentences. Pure genius & effing
brilliant!
@22 pc ' I know that RLS are pretty social democratic, but do they actually take US state dept
money? '
I don't know. I imagine that by now all the German GNGOs are German-government-funded. Just
as are the German and other NATO contingents. Still 'centrally coordinated' though, aren't they?
RLS was among the German political exporters at wikipedia, so I included it as well. Wikipedia
doesn't list the source of their funding, but I imagine they're government funded? A budget of
€44,391,120 in 2012, according to wp.
GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction
in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around
at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an
obvious infringement of national sovereignty.
" ...the energy level of the complacent is rising"
ISIS and Al Nusra pose at rebelling against their Saudi/CIA masters, and yet through war and
terror do exactly what Saudi/U.S./Israel want them to do.
Black Lives Matter and other identity politics groups pose at rebelling against their MoveOn
and Democratic Party masters, and yet through creation of chaos and 'FEAR OF TRUMP' do exactly
what the Democratic Party and Hillary 2016 want them to do.
Rg an LG @20
I thought where you were going was ... When the previously complacent but now energized are
tightly restricted in what they think is permissible thought, poorly and politically correctly
'educated', and (therefore) easily manipulated, they are as likely to be placated by 'other hatred',
or by imperialist fear-mongering and "Let's have a war!" as by all the good things we wish they'd
fight for.
Simply put, any and all organization pretending to do "good" has actually been infiltrated and
subverted by the PTB. From local NGO's all the way to HRW, USAID, Red Cross, and even UN agencies
like the Minustah who spread cholera to Haiti post-earthquake. But you dont believe in the NWO,
do you? ;) /a>
As the originator of " ...the energy level of the complacent is rising", please notice that I
didn't say what the result would be. I continue to smoke hopium or I would have offed myself long
ago.
i agree with fairleft/28 and Lozion/29 that all the spreading of Democracy since WWII has been
more about empire building with private finance at the core.
The reason we won't see world wide uprisings in the smaller countries is because our organizations
of empire backed by the MIC/NSA/CIA et. al. have eliminated any potential threats, likely in their
youth for decades now.
Again, the ring that rules them all is private finance and those that own that hidden matrix.
lebretteurfredonnant | Mar 12, 2016 11:10:53 PM |
32
Great article B
Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront
of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to
them.
One thing about all this Russo-phobia is that with the new Russia military dominance all this
habit To scream bloody murder every time Russia does something seems Like water off a duck's back.It
is too late and unless Russia get another Yeltsin or Gorbachev after Putin or the united state
catch up on its military technology we are already living in a new world.The US dominance throughout
the world is over.
This action seems more about Putin's paranoia about internal dissent than the effectiveness of
these pseudo NGO's who can be easily monitored. Russia may have a military backed with Nukes but
their economy is about the size of Mexico so I doubt they will be projecting much military might
for very long.
Putin is apparently settling into his President for Life position and informing the weak opposition
that any dissent will be viewed as foreign interference.
article offers a bit more details, yet still unconfirmed whether it was "shot-down" by rebels
...
Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in
Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting
reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and
brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the
Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down
by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure.
Biden Jr's resume is unsurprisingly sprinkled with Ivy-league dust - he is on the
Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute , a director for the Center
for National Policy and the US Global Leadership Coalition comprising 400 American businesses,
NGOs, senior national security and foreign policy experts.
Former US President Bill Clinton appointed him an
Executive
Director of E-Commerce Policy and he was honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural
Committee.
NED and affiliates: a perpetuum mobile for reapimg benefits from US imperialism!
5;You will be very unhappy;Trump says he's gonna put Jesus back in Xmas!We'll be able to say Merry
Christmas wo getting the haters upset.I didn't see that quote in todays Ziorags though.
The lying times also gets yesterdays weather and sports scores correct,so lets be fair now.
Blaming the violence from outside agitators on Trumps "political arson"is hilarious.Who da Nazis?
Bernie quickly denounced Trumps claim of them being Sanders supporters.He has to eschew that commie
label. Move on .Org has been silent throughout the abysmal Obomba reign.There resurrection as
Trump bashers will be a death knell for the Ziohypocrites who run it.Trump is a direct threat
to the Zionist control of America.Their hair is on fire.
I think what is really happening is the that Trump people are not the complacent,as anyone
fighting his words obviously are stuck in the narrative of BS foisted on US by the global monsters,or
have skin in the illegal immigrant game.
Why are there no protesters at the hell bitches rallies?I mean she is directly responsible
for hundreds of thousands of innocents deaths,division and destruction to rival ww2,while Trump
calls to bring back troops,help the working man,protect and expand SS are protest worthy?All things
they protested under the shrub?Hypocrisy writ large.
21;Wapo was just as bad under the previous owners.
How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age reveals the absolutely
perfidy of the leaders of those nations in allowing it. Payoffs.
I just read that The Donald has been invited and is going to make an appearance at the AIPAC
ring-kissing event toward the end of the month. The Hil and Joe Biden will be there too, of course,
kissing ass for all they're worth ... the only 'logical' thing for Trump to do is to let 'er rip
in opposition. Send his critics in both forks of the War Party around the bend, set his 'loyalists'
... and how many others? ... dancin' in the streets. The AIPAC command performance might be interesting
this year ...
Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry
on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people
think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \
It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit
organization".
An excellent description of all US/AngloZionist NGOs
@41 Trump has also stated, given the ISIS situation, he would put 20,000-30,000 US troops in
Iraq/Syria. He doesn't say whether they would be fighting with ISIS or against it.
41;Of course the donald will make nice with the framers of the agenda,or else they'll call in
Mossad to kill him off,or invent memes like HE is the fascist.Sheesh.The crimes of the Hell Bitch
leave one, with the lack of arrows at her huge inviting target suspicious,eh?
AIPAC;Talk bout a foreign NGO and its tax exempt!
Trump is not afraid to talk turkey with these clowns,he's dome it already,with his neutrality
comment.
Over the last 40 years or so it has become unfashionable among the intelligentsia to want Merry
Xmas said.It's the generic happy holidays.
Because the Zionists didn't like it. It's ok for the 60% Israelis to have a Jewish State, but
its not ok for 90%Christian America to have a Christian (nominal)state. And do you know who had
prayer (voluntary)t aken out of schools? Zionists from LI.Nazis. Just like the idiots in Chicago
who gave Sanders a black eye. Soros, the Zionist. Helps Shillary?
Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
I hate organized religion btw, its all personal. Freedom.
And the FF agreed,by keeping religion far from govt.
[... ]
I imagine all the Pakistanis reading your joke are 'laughing' uproariously.
jfl | Mar 13, 2016 7:54:47 PM | 45
I do not know many Pakistanis but I know some. And in that small sample, some do show a sense
of humor and some do not.
By the way, I actually had hard time understanding if the problem of "Happy Holidays" versus
"Merry Christmas" is totally contrived or not. It reminds me when as a "wee lad" someone stopped
me on the street with a simple question "Where is the store?" "What do you mean, the store?" "Liquor
store, of course!" The point is that when you say "Happy Holidays" in Poland it is an obvious
abbreviation of Holiday of the God's Birth.
And after few months another problem. You can wish "Happy Holidays" once more, but more standard
is "Happy Great Night Holidays" and somewhat rare "Happy Holidays of the Lord's Resurection".
So to people who have a choleric attitude to some variations of the greetings I would wish
"Be yourself! Be grumpy if you wish! No need to be happy!".
"... Iran's condensate production is increasing along with production of natural gas. Gains followed completion a few months ago of several development phases at giant offshore South Pars field, including phases 12, 15-16, and 17-18, which added 120,000 b/d of condensate ready for export. Most of the condensate is being stored at sea, occupying two thirds of Iran's current floating capacity and awaiting a buyer. Iran's condensate production is expected rise even further in 2016. ..."
"... It is thus conceivable that Iran can raise its crude oil production about 500,000-700,000 b/d within 3 months, and up to 800,000 b/d within 6 months. ..."
"... Most of Iran's competitors supplying similar crude oil to the same markets, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have secured their sales by signing term agreement with customers. These commitments are usually for at least 1 year. ..."
"... Since Iran lacks a huge capacity to store unsold oil, it could increase crude oil production only slowly and cautiously. ..."
"... The outlook for Iranian condensate is different. High in sulfur, Iran's condensate is considered a light crude and is traded at prices higher than those of its heavy oil. Iran has fewer competitors for condensate-for which demand, particularly in Asia, is high-than for oil. ..."
"... Condensate flow will increase with gas production, particularly from South Pars field, an extension of Qatar's supergiant North field. The field has been Zangeneh's highest priority for development. ..."
Iran's mature oil fields are in advanced stages of decline. The US Energy
Information Administration estimates that Iranian oil fields have natural
decline rates of 8-11% and recovery rates of 20-25%.
Iran had planned to employ water and gas injection for enhanced oil recovery.
Gas injection in mature field was to have reached 330 million cu m/day by
the end of 2016. Since 2011, however, Iran hasn't been able to reach more
than 60% of its gas-injection goals. The average of actual gas injected
between March 2006 and March 2011 never increased more than 75% of what
was originally planned.
... ... ...
After the European Union-imposed embargos on exports and shipping insurance
in 2012, Iranian oil exports fell to almost half their level of a year earlier,
forcing National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) to cut production and shut down
some of its fields. The cuts of course focused on very mature, inefficient
fields and wells, especially those producing heavy and extra-heavy crude
oil.
In all, Iran's production and production capacity have been hammered.
Since Iran cannot produce crude oil at maximum potential rates, and because
it has had to halt production from some of its older fields, analysts cannot
precisely estimate Iran's production capacity. Estimating potential recovery
from idle fields would be guesswork.
The Iranian oil ministry estimates the country's crude oil production
capacity at 3.5-3.7 million b/d. With condensate considered to be light
crude oil, production capacity rises to perhaps 4 million b/d.
Production rebound
Aside from real uncertainties about oil production capacity, Iran's ability
to increase production in case of sanctions relief is another major question.
If sanctions are lifted, how much and for how long will it take Iran to
increase its production?
Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh announced that Iran's production could increase
by up to 1 million b/d quickly. The International Energy Agency estimates
that Iran's production capacity is 3.6 million b/d and that the country
can increase output by 600,000-800,000 b/d within 3 months. In May, the
IEA reported Iranian production in April of 2.88 million b/d, up 90,000
b/d from March.
Two main uncertainties hamper predictions about Iran's oil production
rebound. The first is Iran's technical ability to raise output. The second
is the country's ability to export oil.
Some observers argue that production cuts in old fields have enabled
reservoir pressures to increase and might allow production to resume at
high rates. Gas injection also might boost output in mature fields within
3-6 months.
Iran's condensate production is increasing along with production
of natural gas. Gains followed completion a few months ago of several development
phases at giant offshore South Pars field, including phases 12, 15-16, and
17-18, which added 120,000 b/d of condensate ready for export. Most of the
condensate is being stored at sea, occupying two thirds of Iran's current
floating capacity and awaiting a buyer. Iran's condensate production is
expected rise even further in 2016.
It is thus conceivable that Iran can raise its crude oil production
about 500,000-700,000 b/d within 3 months, and up to 800,000 b/d within
6 months.
But the other question, access to the market, remains unanswered. The
sanctions target Iranian exports. It might take at least 3-6 months from
the time of a nuclear agreement for sanctions to be lifted significantly.
And removal of the ban on imports of Iranian oil in Europe requires a consensus
of EU members. This might be hard to achieve quickly.
There is no doubt that any nuclear deal will have an immediate psychological
effect on the market. Sales negotiations will start, and Iran at least could
slightly increase its crude oil and condensate exports, particularly by
the last quarter of this year when a seasonal demand increase in Iran would
absorb some of the incremental production.
Regaining market share
Beyond sanctions, Iran's other challenge for raising its oil exports
is regaining lost market share. This problem is particularly acute at a
time of oversupply and low oil prices.
Most of Iran's competitors supplying similar crude oil to the same
markets, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have secured their sales by signing
term agreement with customers. These commitments are usually for at least
1 year.
So Tehran has no choice other than to sell most of its oil in the spot
market for the next year. It will have to create incentives for signing
term contracts to regain long-term market share. Since Iran lacks a
huge capacity to store unsold oil, it could increase crude oil production
only slowly and cautiously. With prices low, it doesn't make sense
for Iran to rent tankers as floating storage and sell oil at further discounts.
Oil stored at sea will encourage Iran's customers to push for further discounts.
The outlook for Iranian condensate is different. High in sulfur,
Iran's condensate is considered a light crude and is traded at prices higher
than those of its heavy oil. Iran has fewer competitors for condensate-for
which demand, particularly in Asia, is high-than for oil.
Condensate flow will increase with gas production, particularly from
South Pars field, an extension of Qatar's supergiant North field. The field
has been Zangeneh's highest priority for development.
Condensate makes up much of the 30 million bbl of oil Iran currently
holds in floating storage, which will provide the first cargos ready for
immediate export when sanctions are lifted. This offloading would reduce
rental costs while Iran prepared to boost production. Therefore, we can
expect an immediate release of oil from floating storage upon any possible
deal at the end of June or in early July.
If negotiations lead to a comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program
by the end of June or early July, Iranian production and exports will rise
about 200,000 b/d by the end of 2015 because at least some of the sanctions
might then have been eased and because global demand will be seasonally
high. The rest of the country's production and export increase would enter
the market gradually through mid-2016.
An open question is how extra Iranian supply would affect the global
oil market. While predictions vary for production from shales and other
low-permeability formations in 2016, most analysts expect low oil prices
at least to suppress growth rates from these sources if not to cause declines
in the next year or two. Decline forecasts have been as high as 1 million
b/d of so-called tight oil.
A gradual rise of crude and condensate from Iran thus might be offset
by a decline from shale next year and have a modest impact on the price
of oil. That balance, of course, has a broader geopolitical context as crises
in Yemen and Iraq keep upward pressure on the crude price.
The author Sara
Vakhshouri is founder and president of SVB Energy International, a strategic
energy consulting firm based in Washington, DC. She advises international
corporations, think tanks, investment banks, and law firms on global energy
markets, geopolitics of energy, and investment patterns. During 2000-08,
she worked in the public and private sectors of the Iranian energy industry.
From 2004 to 2005, she worked as an advisor to National Iranian Oil Co.
International, a division responsible for marketing and sale of Iranian
crude oil and products. Vakhshouri holds a PhD in energy security and Middle
Eastern studies and was a visiting fellow at Oxford Institute for Energy
Studies. She has MA degrees in business management (international marketing)
and international relations.
For last month, OPEC's crude oil production dropped 90,000 barrels per day, on some small losses
in Iraq, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates, but new production from Iran and the maintenance of
the production status quo in Saudi Arabia has kept losses to an overall minimum. Production from
Iraqi, Nigeria and UAE combined fell by 350,000 barrels per day in February.
We could also expect continued declines of exports coming from Iraq in March
"... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on
foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse
Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt
Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.
Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores,
and despised by a majority of the population.
Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics,"
cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and
meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for
the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of
employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in
the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to
pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.
Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.
Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the
Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they
are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham
attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to
praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal
party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is
going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the
disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure
if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders,
then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote
for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this
agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over
the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like
Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford
healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is
that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically
correct."
Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad
and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public
goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like
transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education
was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue),
cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps
to release the productive potential of all citizens.
As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse
is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that
we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know,
Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while
at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.
Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans
to address such.
I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our
politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact
that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone
up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC &
despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded
programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are
homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill
people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has
been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here
but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world
country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American
taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is
an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's
morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you
and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a
good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral
people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would
call causing terrorism... subjective
"Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to
bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"
A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations
make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they
would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.
The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of
Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was
lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to
have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to
becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan
that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that
we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I
will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he
foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime
bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible
things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the
hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them.
That's why the GOP is scared.
And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved
the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the
late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop
erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."
I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have
been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the
Guardian.
The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is
irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose.
Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the
interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever
had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears
pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read
a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple
suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is
really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I
conclude the author is pro Trump!
Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously
("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).
But these
two deserve a response:
"He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
"He suggested suppressing religious liberty"
People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All
countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If
you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.
I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what
is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly
legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned
from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be
trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked,
for how long, what would be the appeal process.
My point is that
Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control.
That
would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more
vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question
about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is
dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how
could anyone fall for it again?
When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined,
not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the
considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s,
with their Southern strategy.
But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and
swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and
through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?
RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound
sleep, ascension.
Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and
tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going
forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened'
intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's
developing preeminence.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you
want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their
hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law,
all you need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no
problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now
they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their
toes and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with
new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about
oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France)
still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has
had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was
in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of
the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western
civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy.
Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being
invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit
the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after
the demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab
Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi
and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up
and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along
with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators
and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions
and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run
by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo
today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time
in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues
of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think
their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its
presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance
examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute
of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con
cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad
bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to
sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation
is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off
than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster
like you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments
intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people
had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded
(National Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting
what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over
Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias
compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources
under the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the
going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human
life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder
why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed
their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD,
ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but
the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to
death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as
he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and
murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist
elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling,
snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim
world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi
left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way
to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary
Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the
victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun
by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in
somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected
or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the
Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns'
to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson
of planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the
euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about
not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our
well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the
Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it
themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface
in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.
Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's
as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so
it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from
Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat"
from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the
thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that
the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate
Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of
our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy
outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner
got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent
objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan,
Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world
to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend
the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian,
as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and
American Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The
so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their
looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army,
used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned
a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across
North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext
of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular
leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
"... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
"... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
"... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
"... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
"... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important
one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are
a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and
additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.
My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist
leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone
in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing
about it.
The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective
ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can
remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the
camera when answering questions of substance.
The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy
Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom.
After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.
I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute
worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly
turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.
BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!
If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we
get.
here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals
with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually
says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising
the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine
BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please.
add some insight. at least a bit.
Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking
insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate
a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would
betray Israel by SEEKING peace.
Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating
a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that
the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda
is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines
IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran
must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that
'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'.
Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its
life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.
Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military
Industrial Complex?
"Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing
multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?
All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear
weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are
supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"
Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.
The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within
the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"
Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain
global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.
Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely
with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another
"humanitarian intervention".
Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly
breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza
strip conflict.
If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by
"journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply
flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media,
Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster
after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her
disastrous decisions in Libya).
Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig,
the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage
Hillary has caused.
But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare
reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements;
rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark
money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics
offers, both globally and domestically.
And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism
to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.
Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything
from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied
a true forum for change.
What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place?
Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else,
or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological
warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people
that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she
will increase the force structure and the involvement.
It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from
Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less
lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing
and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the
only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.
During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention
in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.
But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was
currently urging us into another intervention.
Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.
The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and
Barack Obama. Ye gods.
"According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New
America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports
that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed
between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."
You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your
local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.
Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have
said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.
After reading " The Dron Papers
" Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but
they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that
the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands
of entirely innocent people.
So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question
on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
Excellent article.
Informative and quite rightly challenging.
America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the
audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts
at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role
in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear
deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and
what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.
This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is
doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing
everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US
to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that,
but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical
implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized
the military action like the constitution requires.
Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who
also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely
on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is
particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's
war adventures.
It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the
GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the
old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally,
but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing
for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.
'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the
folks who DO approve anyways).
"The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable.
Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no
longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does,
others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very
few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower
left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether
it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does
as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely
is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you
think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal
delusion.
As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene.
Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We
could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE
CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is
still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya
right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.
The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But
it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you
could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but,
well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility.
The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as
much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have
been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want
to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy,
criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you
need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem
dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they
appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes
and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely
illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies"
mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country
if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had
nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in
the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the
old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization
and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately
democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted
it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos
for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria,
Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the
demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring"
was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and
Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge
in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny
responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with
the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and
governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and
international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug
lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today
is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many
months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that
gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are
tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every
nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient
statute of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum
neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000.
No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities
and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse
than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it
was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like
you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened
on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed
before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National
Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what
they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's
rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for
power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under
the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets
tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life
or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the
Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why
I voted for him twice.
His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of
right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama
has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive
mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death
although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had
sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered
Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements
of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling
faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something
that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left
a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to
the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton
who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation
of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists,
and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's
eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible
destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed
that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans
have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go
in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of
planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic
mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting
American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside
Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well
laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias
we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans
insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never
been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France
would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction.
The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron
have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming
years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya
to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from
the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb
of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars
in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and
sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western
leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in
the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them.
The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while
the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan,
Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to
overthrow third world dictators.
You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial
economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American
Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so
called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis
in Ukraine.
After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred
to Syria and renamed ISIS.
ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends.
Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting
men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for
ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of
"stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders
who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own
death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight
RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with
no investigative journalism involved.
RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish
civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media,
despite it being a war crime.
Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy
Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream
corporate media.
Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple
robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the
truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane.
Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's
mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a
car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane
exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the
initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim
the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died
before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION
ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July
1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
All had said to friends that they had seen too much.
Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a
blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with
"justice" of this kind.
That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?
1 - James McDougal
- Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary
confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of
sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement
with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the
investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot
wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by
Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead
November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed
Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in
the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising
events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in
his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was
building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he
died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and
Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties
to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were
several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant
along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancČe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the
suicide ruling of his fiancČe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a
suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of
a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal
Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death
December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made
advances.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his
investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving
Clinton.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC
apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.
On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information
about the investigation with no results.
This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone
imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im
sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..
So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the
deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that
he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely
that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...
There is
something rotten in the state of Denmark..
and by Denmark I mean DC.
It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago
FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished
for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This
paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has
been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might
as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA
Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian
officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all
the embassies not out in the sticks.
Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth
on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in
assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.
What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid
americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none
of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.
Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough
of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools
will lap it up.
It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.
Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence
failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about
the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by
worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.
As for the actual case it appears that
Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of
the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence
& corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations
such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".
Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US
finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and
prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.
Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a
Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being
corrected.
Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right
to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.
Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations
and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.
But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more
hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the
planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal
decline.
because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis
appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian
propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack
Russia. the west is so desperate.
This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.
And those
hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:
Mossadegh in Iran
Arbenz in Guatelema
Allende in Chile
Lamumba in the Congo
Multiple attempts on Castro
Noriega in Panama
Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'
All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded
proxies.
Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the
assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the
temerity to call Russia a mafia state.
the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the
western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or
was beaten to death?
Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being
released?
With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria,
as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can
expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and
propaganda is all they have left.
the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was
killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the
job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major
U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S.
government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S.
citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
$28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions
stashed away, if not more.
Estimates of Blair's wealth range from Ł20m to Ł60m. Who knows
with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth Ł5m, but I suspect the real figure is
much higher.
What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their
evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.
Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the
propaganda is most definitely working.
- Major Russian figure murdered.
- Happens in the US, home of the CIA
- US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
- Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
- Slow handclap
"... Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see. ..."
"... Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty. ..."
"... "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening. ..."
"... I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event. ..."
"... The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.) ..."
"... So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink. ..."
"... Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible. ..."
"... And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic. ..."
"... According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. ..."
"... Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. ..."
"... Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors. ..."
"... Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units. ..."
"... That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries. ..."
"... Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking. ..."
"... Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on. ..."
"... American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on. ..."
"... You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge. ..."
"... Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue. ..."
"... Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks. ..."
"... Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. ..."
Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults
of superannuated Castro manqués. "When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist
critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship," Obama recalled. "And I had to sit there and listen
to Ortega"-Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua-"make an hour-long rant against
the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously-because it really wasn't
a threat to us"-helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.
The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally
unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin
the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.
"It is," the president responded coolly. "This is what they're looking for."
He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had
been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me,
Putin is not particularly nasty.
"The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our
meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these
other folks." Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than
Americans tend to think. "He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with
us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world
is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't
suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape
the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any
of the issues that are important."
Russia's invasion of Crimea in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule
of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama's critics as proof that the post-red-line
world no longer fears America.
So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question
of deterrent credibility. "The argument is made," I said, "that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria
and thought, He's too logical, he's too rational, he's too into retrenchment. I'm going to push
him a little bit further in Ukraine."
Obama didn't much like my line of inquiry. "Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I'm
always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don't think anybody thought that George W. Bush
was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently
nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch, right smack dab in the middle
of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq." Obama was referring to Putin's 2008 invasion
of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later
invaded Ukraine-to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia's sphere of influence.
"Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp.
And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there," he said. "He's done the exact same thing
in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia
is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine
or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature
of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want
without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent
country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on."
Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so
Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military
domination by Russia no matter what we do," he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
"It's realistic," he said. "But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what
our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's
always going to be some ambiguity." He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him,
in order to knock it down. "I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who
are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't
maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy."
"The 'crazy Nixon' approach," I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you're
capable of committing irrational acts.
"But let's examine the Nixon theory," he said. "So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos
than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and
all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have
emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I'm going to be trying to figure out
how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In
what way did that strategy promote our interests?"
But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova-another vulnerable post-Soviet
state? Wouldn't it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about
that?
"There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that's how people respond. People
respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not
that important to us, they know that, and we know that," he said. "There are ways to deter, but it
requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not.
Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with
Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea
that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area
is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence
we have seen over the last 50 years."
... ... ...
A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. "Unlike
China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only
vision but a generation to overcome," Obama said. "The path that Putin is taking is not going to
help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military
force to show greatness is strong, and that's what Putin's inclination is. So I don't underestimate
the dangers there." Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the
country, and the next president, absorbs: "You know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and
bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think, Eh, that's
nonsense. But it's true. And by the way, it's the element of American power that the rest of
the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there's always a sense on the part of
other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated."
TotoCatcher -> Whateveryousay
Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall
Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street.
Nothing new here to see.
Question -> TotoCatcher
Establishment? I thought he was unqualified because he was a "junior Senator" and "community
leader". Now he's establishment?
So basically establishment has about as much meaning as "entitlement" - its definition varies
entirely depending on who you're referencing?
pp91303 -> Question
Totocatcher is a leftist accusing Obama of being a wall street, "corporate lawyer". He wasn't.
The right never said he was. So an ignorant leftist calls Obama a corporate crony and that is
somehow an indictment of the right. Brilliant.
Obama was a red diaper baby, who went to a racist and anti-American church in Chicago, who
worked a few years for a scummy little law firm that represented leftist-subsidized-housing developers
like Tony Rezco, and who previously worked as a community organizer.
nubwaxer -> Whateveryousay
mine's not a hate comment but the extreme right, all republicans it seems, think bush's preemptive
or proactive militarized foreign policy is still the right approach. it's still the shoot, aim,
oops quagmire approach and obama's careful and patient evolving approach drives them crazy.
the problem seems to me our oversized military is so well trained and well armed with the newest
gear, which of course keeps profits flowing to defense contractors, that since we have it we nee
to use it constantly to keep its edge. president obama seems to have reluctantly accepted our
endless war strategy, but to the great ire of the right has shifted away from a militarized foreign
policy to a primarily diplomatic approach. i for one see great success in the iran nuclear deal
and restoration of relations with cuba.
of course there will be those whipped into mass hysteria and seething anger by the relentless
right wing propaganda and i'll be gone before i have to read any of their comments.
Tom Hoobler -> nubwaxer
Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in
disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people,
without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure
was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president
we've had--and the most bloodthirsty.
Oscarthe4th -> Tom Hoobler
"The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama
to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study
Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening.
Oscarthe4th -> David Murphy
Glad we agree on LBJ.
I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original
post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential
to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have
been long and horrid in any event.
The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations
that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was
more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.)
Obama, like most other presidents in messy wars, has expanded the president's power, and I
fully agree that he has gone beyond what is constitutional. For the most part, however, it has
not been covert. That reduces some elements of the danger his acts pose, but not all.
screendummie -> Kimo Krauthammer
No, the Arab Spring happened after Obama was president. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011, first
in Tunisia and then elsewhere throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The uprisings in Libya
and Syria happened a couple years after Obama was president. Libya is a complete mess and a declared
failed state because of Obama.
Sarastro92 -> screendummie
So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But
much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has
tried to pull back from the brink.
screendummie -> Sarastro92
Special operation troops are in Syria. This has been reported numerous times. There was even
a Congressional grilling of a general on our troops training Syrian fighters with the revelation
that a half billion was spent training of 3 or 4 Syrian fighters. The officer grilled was Centcom
commander, General Lloyd Austin back last year. You're blatantly ignorant of what's going on in
the world.
screendummie -> Sarastro92
I hope you don't really believe 50 U.S. troops are only in Syria. I bet it's far greater. You
have to remember they get rotated out. More than 50 troops have been deployed to Syria if they're
being rotated. The troops in Jordan are supporting the combat mission. How is that any different?
I'm curious how those 50 troops in Syria are fed and supported. Do they bring it all in themselves,
or are more U.S. troops crossing in and out of Syria on a daily basis? If you really believe there
are 50 U.S. troops in Syria, then you're really kidding yourself.
There are several thousand troops now in Iraq. Before it was just 300. No, I'm not buying the
advisor claim one bit.
Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you
don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine.
The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible.
Davis Pruett -> Sarastro92
>>>And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at
Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story
that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic.
More-or-less the general disposition reported by Goldberg - but minus a vast trove of key facts
which he purposefully distorts and obscures.
Sarastro92 -> David Murphy
Bull. According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped
$5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in
the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent
further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.
Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved
the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded
by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
The French and Brits are culpable. Putin has changed the whole dynamic leading to a ceasefire
and the demise of ISIS in Syria. But the whole thing can blow up at anytime.
Your problem is that you read the CNN- NY Times propaganda and think you know something.
David Murphy -> screendummie
Can't exclude Cameron and Sarkozy from guilt over Libya. They sent in some special forces,
dropped a few bombs and then moved on to other things. The arab spring was a grass-roots attempt
to bring about democracy, which failed sadly.
elHombre -> Kimo Krauthammer
Really? Libya, Syria and ISIS were "debacles" when Obama took office? Really?
And 23 up votes? The revisionist rubes are out in force on this one.
Kimo Krauthammer -> hyphenatedamerican
Everywhere the US treads we leave chaos and increased radicalism. Time for the US to get out
now and let Putin wipe put ALL the terrorist vermin, even those we have been backing.
Davis Pruett -> hyphenatedamerican •
>>>Putin is not fighting terrorists, he is fighting for Assad. Not the same thing.
Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors.
Apparently, you missed the part where a few weeks ago Syria and Russia offered a ceasefire
and complete amnesty to any "revolutionaries" who are not associated with Al Qaida or ISIS.
Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province
have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories
alongside Syrian Arab Army support units.
That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and
the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries.
So, long story short:
You don't know what you're talking about. You are factually wrong, and should be ashamed for
sounding off in public about something you have no knowledge of.
azt24 -> Question
By every objective measure, Iraq was in better shape in 2009 vs. 2016. There was no ISIS, no
Christian or Yazidi genocide, no slave markets in 2009, and violence was a tiny fraction of what
it is today. These are just facts.
As for picking 2009 for a start date, the article is titled The Obama Doctrine. The subject
is Obama, the topic is politics.
David Murphy -> azt24
Iraq's problem now are largely self-inflicted. The Shia majority decided to oppress the Sunni,
and Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni. A simple resolution to ISIS in the ME would have been for the
Iraq government to act as a national government being fair to all not a partisan Shia government.
Iran has been active in Iraq since Bush's day. Obama could achieve little in that benighted country,
which was in a far better state before Bush led the attack on it.
elHombre -> nubwaxer
Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of
Bush's adventurism.
Only Obamadupes can fail to appreciate the risks of Obama's one-sided, ego-assuaging Iran fiasco
and Cuba-courting.
Defense contractors employ people, but you probably believe we don't need the jobs.
You are, indeed, an Obama nubwaxer.
azt24 -> rswfire
" I feel President Obama isn't someone who really seeks the spotlight"
Surely you jest. No President has been more in love with the sound of own voice, or more given
to "I-me-mine-I-me-mine" when talking. Because it's always about him. Like when he explained to
Bibi Netanyahu that he understood the Middle East because he was raised by a single mom.
If Obama has quieted down in recent years, I can only suppose that it must have become obvious
even inside the WH bubble that it wasn't working -- people have completely tuned Obama out.
TotoCatcher
The Atlantic is removing comments from most of the articles. Why? I won't read here if they
don't bring comments back.
This story is booooring. So I don't have much to comment on it. Obama was just another Bush
who was just another Clinton. NEXT!
chris chuba
This article clearly states that we DID start to arm and equip the rebels after 'several months'
in 2011 via a CIA program. It is a myth that we did nothing in Syria.
What ended up happening is exactly what Obama feared would happen. The farmers and doctors
were supplanted by the foreign Jihadist groups that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring. This
was inevitable and the only thing that could have prevented that was an actual invasion and occupation
of Syria which I in no way, shape or form endorse.
Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this
CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more
than wishful thinking.
Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil
war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go'
so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on.
Hurrya -> EnderAK12
Are we sure that there was ever a free Syrian army? The Free Syrian Army was a media concept
and never had a significant presence on the ground.
Thermite -> EnderAK12
We were supporting the Free Syrian Army since 2011. Basically when it started.
gtiger -> EnderAK12
You talk about the FSA as it's a viable entity. At best it's a loose alliance of rebel groups
of widely differing ideology. It's Libya part II.
Fresh -> Guyzer
American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on
the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred
weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous
people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for
Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created
Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent
of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on.
You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same
extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity
when their guy is in charge.
Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems
will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue.
Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican
They called the Mujahadeen back then, and Carter then Reagan created them, armed them and trained
them. Even a certain Bin Laden.
Innes Mizner -> azt24
Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read
the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah,
that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks.
Innes Mizner -> azt24
I have already provided background information and proof he and his crew were trained in Scotland.
I assumed this was well known in the US, I mean before you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
A lot of the other articles have been buried, but the BBC one is good, and if you give me a
while I will dig out an SAS officer discussing this.
The Afghan Mujahideen were deported from their southern Scottish, and northern English, training
grounds after the Lockerbie bombing. Nobody suspects them of being the cause of that crash, the
biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK to date, but they were under the flight path and they were
terrorists/freedom fighters training to down Soviet planes, so they were instantly deported to
avoid media attention.
No, I'm claiming that the original fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorist Mujadeen recruited
by the CIA by Carter included Bin Laden's bodyguards and other Saudis.
I know that because I'm
Scottish, they were trained in Scotland.
No, I think that individual died before "Al Qaeda".
Are you aware "Al Qaeda" is a name assigned
by western security agencies, they just adopted the name after we named them that?
This was written by the British foreign secretary at the time,
Robin Cook,
someone who had access to all the MI6 and NSA and CIA files:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.
Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the
Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer
file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to
defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have
occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation
would turn its attention to the west.
Innes Mizner -> Fresh
"American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger"
I agree with your post but I'd
roll it back 20 years. Kissinger extended the Vietnam debacle and extended it to create Pol Pot.
A lot of Reagan's problems were clearing up his mess, and failing.
Eisenhower, FDR, those guys I admire. New Dealers who knew what war was.
CharlieSeattle -> Innes Mizner
Did ja ever wonder why Reagan gets the teary e/RINO "neocon" accolades and not Eisenhower?
Lets
see...
Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the MIC corrupting the US government.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported them all after WWII in Operation Wet back.
Reagan administration was #6th worst scandalous, worse than Obama. Eisenhower administration was #23rd worst scandalous, only because of VP Nixon!
Face it, if Eisenhower was running for office today, the Reagan RINO "neocons" would KILL HIM!
I am very glad Trump is not like Reagan.
.............Trump/Eisenhower in 2016
veerkg_23 -> Innes Mizner
Pol Pot was a Chinese thing. The US supported the Royalists, whoever they were, in Cambodia. Mao
decided he wanted a piece because he fear Soviet domination so formed the Khmer Rouge. Didn't
turn out so well.
Innes Mizner -> veerkg_23
To begin with the Khmer Rouge were a local Nazi group that emerged from the ashes of Kissenger's
cross border bombing. Then after they'd wiped out a third of their population neighbouring Vietnam
invaded, ejected them and then retreated in one of the few genuine examples of military humanitarian
interventions.
The Chinese did hate the Vietnamese, so that annoyed them. But it annoyed Reagan
more, because you yanks also had a big hang up about Vietnam kicking your arse.
So Reagan sent in the Green Berets to train Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in guerilla tactics
- and supply them with funds, weapons and diplomatic cover.
Then Iran-Contra broke, Reagan sacrificed Ollie North on that bonfire, withdrew the Green Berets
from Cambodia, and instead persuaded Maggie Thatcher to send in the SAS to support the Khmer Rouge.
Now say what you want about Thatcher, but she was never a liar. She sent the SAS in and boasted
about her support for the Khmer Rouge on 'Blue Peter', a British childrens TV programme.
None of that is widely known in the US, I know, but I can provide supporting links that prove
what I've claimed here if you ask for any.
In yet another top-secret operation US Green Berets trained genocidal Khmer Rouge
units in Cambodia after contact was established between Ray Cline, senior CIA agent and Steve
Arnold, special adviser to US President Reagan. When the Iran Contra scandal got under way in
1983, President Reagan, fearing another unpleasant exposure, asked British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher to take over. She sent the SAS to train Pol Pot forces. 'We first went to Thailand in
1984' senior officials of the SAS (British equivalent of CIA) later testified, 'The Yanks and
us work together; we're close like brothers they didn't like it anymore than we did. We trained
the Khmer Rouge in a lot of technical stuff', the officer remembers. 'At first they wanted to
go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them go easy'. The SAS felt uneasy with
the operation and a lot of us would change sides given half a chance. That's how
"... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
"... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
"... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
"... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
"... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
"... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what
the Democrats have done.
The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build
myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.
Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support
to do much of anything.
Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster
support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.
Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the
armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really
wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the
power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in
my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.
Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?
Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate.
And he stated again that this is not a democracy.
Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena
Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.
The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.
Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope
The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and
Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces
This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward
spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the
DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton.
America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America.
Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else
who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.
Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running
who is for all of us, because he cares...
If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the
People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...
The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this
was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and
less democratic.
Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the
race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.
And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign
sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.
Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms
of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all
in Philadelphia!
The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and
done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!
The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now
745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other'
and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%.
These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.
Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the
Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the
coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate
in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends
in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President,
and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.
free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow
what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the
european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the
regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse
Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan
Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.
When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire"
the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.
Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding
the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".
Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans
nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted
politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".
Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad
and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans
and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
American policy".
Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically
changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to
run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"
Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative
isn't totally working... what will they try next?
I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives
just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear
war.
illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the
1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the
cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the
streets of America before I would support her.
(RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial
to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied
over from Sander's after all.
Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary
if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate
of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people
in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed
possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.
Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich,
and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
Life will not get any better, or at least
much
better, than it is already. And it's likely
to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality
is to
grok the horrors of
reality
without retreating to
the comfort of fantasy stories
. Most aren't up to the task.
"The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and
annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
-
Ernest Becker
The Denial of Death
"A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities
by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting
genocide will suffer genocide."
The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question
of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think
of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)
Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This
is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy.
Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing
our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently
evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals
believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to
act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans
are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with
such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans
are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are
only inherently social.
"Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm
among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win.
You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that
100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving
egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think
we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a
few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just
to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole.
I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are
some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole
factory, my friend.
If you exist, you're an asshole.
You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're
an asshole."
-
Nature is an asshole making factory
Happyish
Showtime, 2015
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No
merica is the
destabilizing force
, ongoing, as
soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will
re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and
stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress
once again. now do you understand?
I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than
aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched
up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the
bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever
the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but
once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping
sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make
sense.
Israel is
supposed
to be a nightmare apartheid
weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild
central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of
London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding
countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you
think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people
comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed
once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy
moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar
like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is
no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe
that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the
Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries
I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before
they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic
British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting
foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources
that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri
Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to
work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a
century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of
depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the
Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it
caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.
Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And
as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that
one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose
Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self
destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the
people" or is that "we the folk"
"... A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence of Tehran's direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared Saudi Arabia from culpability. ..."
"... The default judgement was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday. Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims' families, including $2 million to each victim's estate for pain and suffering, and another $6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion in the ruling. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly linking the country to 9/11. ..."
"... "absurd and ridiculous." ..."
"... "I never heard about this ruling and I'm very much surprised because the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001," ..."
"... "Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made, the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any stage of the investigation and the trials that followed." ..."
"... While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn't take part in related hearings, that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond to court summons or appear in court to make their case. ..."
"... "advice and training" ..."
"... "provided material support" ..."
"... "direct support" ..."
"... "There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11." ..."
"... "The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends nor allies of Iran," ..."
"... "They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which happens to be America's best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iran." ..."
A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families
of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence
of Tehran's direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared
Saudi Arabia from culpability.
The default judgement
was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday.
Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims' families,
including $2 million to each victim's estate for pain and suffering, and another
$6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and
claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion
in the ruling.
The ruling is noteworthy particularly since none of the 19 hijackers on September
11 were Iranian citizens. Fifteen were citizens of Saudi Arabia, while two were
from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Egypt and Lebanon.
Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families
of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country
provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign
immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly
linking the country to 9/11.
In response to the latest ruling, Hossein Sheikholeslam, a senior aide to
Iran's parliamentary speaker, called the decision "absurd and ridiculous."
"I never heard about this ruling and I'm very much surprised because
the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part
in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001," he
told
Sputnik. "Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made,
the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any
stage of the investigation and the trials that followed."
While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn't take part in related hearings,
that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment
is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond
to court summons or appear in court to make their case.
Judge Daniels found that Iran failed to defend itself against claims that
it played a role in 9/11. Iran believes the lawsuit is unnecessary because it
says it did not participate in the attack.
In the US, Tehran's role in 9/11 has been debated heavily over the years.
The
9/11 Commission Report stated that some hijackers moved through Iran and
did not have their passports stamped. It also stated that Hezbollah, which the
US designates as a terrorist organization supported by Iran, provided "advice
and training" to Al-Qaeda members.
In a
court document filed in 2011 regarding the latest case, plaintiffs claimed
Hezbollah "provided material support" to Al-Qaeda, such as facilitating
travel, plus "direct support" for the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the
plaintiffs argued Iran was liable.
However, the commission report itself found no evidence to suggest Iran was
aware of the 9/11 plot, and suggested the possibility that if Hezbollah was
tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda members, it may not have been eyeing those
who became hijackers on 9/11.
While the report suggested further investigation into the issue, President
George W. Bush has said, "There was no direct connection between Iran and
the attacks of September 11."
Iran, inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims, has also denied any connection to
Al-Qaeda – a militant Sunni group – and cooperation between the two has been
questioned due to religious differences. Al-Qaeda views the Shia as heretics,
for example.
"The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends
nor allies of Iran," Iran Press Editor-in-Chief Emad Abshenas told Sputnik.
"They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran
as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which
happens to be America's best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in
Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11
attacks had nothing to do with Iran."
How the case moves forward after Daniels' ruling is unclear. According to
Bloomberg, it can be very hard to obtain damages from another country, but plaintiffs
might try to do so by targeting Iranian funds frozen by the US.
"... Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians. ..."
"... The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt. ..."
"... It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them. ..."
"... These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD. ..."
"... The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action. ..."
"... They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS. ..."
Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern
history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police
agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated
for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal
involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.
This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly
the logic behind the elaborate production.
The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there
are "
elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million
euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction
companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might"
- have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does
not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global
lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.
Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already
telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already
arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies
and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the
Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.
Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to
strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is
that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from
the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself,
the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is
herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government
leader in the Senate.
Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected
dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio
Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di
Pietro and the notorious 1990s
Mani Pulite
("Clean Hands") investigation.
And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.
Round up the usual media suspects
Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting
Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.
And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media
words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow
him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal
Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz
may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic
non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested
because he's corrupt.
Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an
article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled
Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September
2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order
to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political
atmosphere.
All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers
saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on
the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with
clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for
the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.
The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential
election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three
different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation.
Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal
enforcer.
What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the
perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist.
As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always
angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.
That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the
hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere
- with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged
with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical,
artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no
smoking guns, something even Moro admits.
And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police
complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And
that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire
"project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global
economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate
in 2018.
Elite Plundering Rules
None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance
with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners.
Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended
from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery
(which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the
arrival of
Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's
invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern"
Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of
these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years.
And few have ever been held accountable.
Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced
mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a
weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.
Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites.
Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape,
foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced,
from the inside, in detail, how they operate.
Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great
deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence
displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack
of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras,
construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared
to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style
buying/bribing of US politicians.
If this was a no-holds-barred
crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is
- the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally
exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply
ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of
the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated
in front of the whole planet.
Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?
No consumption, no investment, no credit
Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year;
probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last
year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on
the way to its worst recession since…1901.
There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the
Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall
global slump in commodity prices.
The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping
14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased
the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech -
for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120
billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public
debt.
Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6%
- still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.
The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has
become "toxic" for global investors.
Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only
way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket
though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades
of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an
economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down
the elected government of a key BRICS player.
And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him
by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign
mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate
a political animal of his stature.
Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the
PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis,
Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the
bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the
same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic
cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese
companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.
Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian
economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But
there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian
economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's
wealth.
So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global
conflicts.
It's the oil, stupid
For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was
first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check
the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).
A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional
powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals.
Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend"
these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations
such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.
Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as
the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st
century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of
a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account
for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.
Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research
and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with
no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in
this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would
hand this over to the competition.
And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014
to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing
opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been
approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the
fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras
stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.
The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from
the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all
this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically,
this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.
It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously
under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy
by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway
axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a
viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment
is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able
to stop them.
The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in
the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means
that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic
Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness
and lack of action.
They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into
them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the
BRICS.
Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who
can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their
"Safe Space".)
"... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
"... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
"... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
"... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I
have others."
– Groucho Marx
What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to
seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving
force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she
and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation
that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with
proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.
Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.
It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught
with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's
highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing
they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers
over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they
will be to be pushed back after that date.
They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like
what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover,
in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept
as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel
and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow
it down?
Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent
refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns,
Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or
two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the
number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.
* * *
Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation,
and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think
the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And
what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal
with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?
You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it
fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying
to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva
Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe
to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres
Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling
refugees to Greece?
Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections
come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch
the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured
you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably
provoke?
It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we
are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands
have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight
(and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are
already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders
after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.
So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders
close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left
it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days
it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll
be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen",
and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration
camp.
The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee
their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in
Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You
should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse.
Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.
You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you
can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other
resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and
Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape
the protagonists themselves either.
* * *
Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What
is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the
talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best
highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond
the moral pale.
As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both
European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting,
because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while
at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.
What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by
reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their
own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people
(93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international
law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine
the terminology on the fly is immoral.
In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third
country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy.
That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral-
skin in the game.
All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands
of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's
elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent
'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose
that power.
* * *
The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence
of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million
Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving
them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option
of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe
as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.
There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has
for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about
if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well
send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.
Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must. It probably won't protect
you from the NSA, but it will do the job of protecting you from your own ISP.
That you have to protect yourself from your ISP is becoming just one more part of the
sad reality that is the modern United States.
I would say Tor is about as good except that Google, Akami, and Cloudflare sites (cough
NC cough) regularly block Tor exit nodes. Still, you get a little more hardening using Tor
browser than other browsers (using defaults).
Umm… I am not sure if you confusing VPN with something else, but yes. Its trivially easy
to use VPN with almost any smartphone.
As for Tor: i agree that State sponsor surveillance is still a risk, but as noted above,
the topic was ISPs (and i mentioned websites). When you use a phone, your carrier acts as
the ISP.
The header with your unique identifier can be scrubbed out when your using a VPN. Verizon
only sees that you "went" to the VPN address…all sites you visit see you as coming from the
VPN address. Neither the two shall meet without further snooping (which is not covered by the
injection Verizon does…that we know of).
Damn, I knew I should have gone through the process to remove the drm from my e books. I might
have to look into doing that immediately. But first I should check how my couple of nook newstand
subscriptions will be handled.
Whew, I have time. That is in the UK. Still a good warning shot over the bow…
"… But U.S. critics say that could allow foreign companies to use the agreement to invalidate
U.S. safety rules and regulations."
One thing no one much mentions is that the TPP allows
foreign
corporations the
ability to sue to invalidate regulations, but does not all local corporations the same. In
this, TPP privileges foreign over local production, and ensures a race to the bottom on product
place of origin.
"A Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their
territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public
or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not
made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by its law."
I thought I saw the word morality some place else in the TPP, but apparently, the IP chapter
was the only place. Bad research on my part! In any case, beware the ratchet clauses and the
enemies within, lest your health system become just "Canadian™" enough for the world market.
disbelief
- noun - dis·be·lief \?dis-b?-?l?f\
: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real.
>
I cringe every time I see a, "9-11 Never Forget," bumper sticker, t-shirt, or beer coozie. I sigh
and say to myself, "How can you never forget what you never knew?"
Here is an interesting exercise that I invite all zerohedge readers to try. The next several times
that you engage someone in a conversation, preferably a politician running for office
, ask the following questions.
Do you remember anything about five Middle Eastern men being arrested by the NYPD on 9-11 for
filming and celebrating the attacks on the WTC and driving around Manhattan in a van that tested
positive for explosives...these were admitted foreign intelligence agents working undercover in
the USA?
In asking this question dozens of times, most recently in a conversation with two rabbis at one
of the five Holocaust Museums in Texas, I have personally never, not once, had a person answer yes.
However, if they do answer yes to you, then ask if they recall what nation the men were from.
I would be shocked to hear any American say, "Israel."
If they answer no, tell them they were Israeli Mossad agents, and ask if that helps them to remember.
Again, I have never had anyone say that they knew anything about what I was talking about. Not
once, not in any city, nor in any state of the USA. If the conversation does continue, what I do
hear, almost exclusively, is utter disbelief that what I am saying is true.
But it is true.
Now, consider that since 9-11, the USA has invaded and occupied what was once the sovereign nation
of Afghanistan for almost 15 years and counting, allegedly due to the role it played in 9-11. We
have spent billions upon billions of dollars and killed tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds
of thousands, in this war effort.
Hellfire thermobaric warhead using a metal augmented explosive charge is used primarily in
urban warfare, against bunkers, buildings caves and other concealed targets. This warhead is designed
to inflict greater damage in multi-room structures, compared to the Hellfire's standard or blast-fragmentation
warheads. The Metal Augmented Charge or MAC (Thermobaric) Hellfire, designated AGM-114N, has completed
rapid development cycle in 2002 and was deployed during OIF by US Marines Helicopters in Iraq.
The new warhead contains a fluorinated aluminum powder that is layered between the warhead
casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the explosive detonates, the aluminum mixture
is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against
enemy personnel and structures. The AGM-114N is designed for deployment from helicopters such
as the AH-1W or UAVs such as the Predator drones.
I hear that more US soldiers serving in Afghanistan now die from suicide than are killed by the
Afghanis, in what is now the longest war in American history . Yet, we are now in
our third Presidential election in the USA since 9-11 and the occupation of Afghanistan, and the
candidates aren't talking about any of this, and the Fourth Estate sure as hell isn't asking any
questions.
Why?
Don't you want to know how the Presidential candidates feel about the fact that the FBI released
the Five Dancing Israelis? What about your congressmen and senators? Don't you want to know how our
nation can imprison Afghanis in Guantanamo Bay, without trial, and torture them for information regarding
9-11... for more than a decade ...yet
the FBI released the Five Dancing
Israelis to fly back to Israel and do television interviews .
If our politicians respond with disbelief, like everyone else I have ever asked, then what does
that tell us?
If nobody from the Fourth Estate ever asks them these questions, then what does that tell us?
By
Rakesh
Upadhyay 09 March 2016 21:1
Iran is expected to raise the April Official Selling Price (OSP) of its flagship
light crude oil to Asia to 25 cents above the Saudi's similarly graded Arab
light. This is the highest premium since 2011 and is an increase of 30 cents
over the previous month.
Iran will likely price its light crude at 50 cents a barrel below the average
of Oman and Dubai quotes, whereas the OSP for Iran Heavy will likely be $2.60
a barrel below Oman and Dubai quotes.
But not all crudes are equal, and when it comes to
Iran Heavy Grade , pricing will remain aggressively competitive. Heavy Grade
is Iran's main export grade, which must compete with Latin America, Iraq and
Saudi Arabia-all of whom supply a similar grade.
When it comes to its light crude, though, the competitive price Iran has
offered so far was for internal reasons and intended to reduce gasoline imports.
Many experts believed that Iran would offer large discounts to regain the
market share it lost under the sanctions regime. However, Iran is using a calculative
approach towards increasing its share and is looking to consolidate and increase
exports to its existing partners such as China, South Korea, and India, in Asia.
Iran expects to
increase exports to India to 460,000 bpd from the current 260,000 bpd. Similarly,
it expects to further increase its exports to
South Korea ,
which has already imported 203,165 bpd-its highest level since 2012.
Demand from Europe has been a little slow to pick up due to ship insurance
and banking-related issues. Nevertheless, the
first shipment to Europe landed in Southern Spain on 6 March 2016. Three
more tankers--one bound for
Romania , another to France and a third to the Mediterranean--are expected
to reach their destinations soon.
The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity
for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through
the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.
BIMCO's chief shipping analyst,
Peter Sand, said, "Former clients of Iran are the ones who are likely to
return as buyers... Italy, Spain and Greece were the top EU importers in 2011."
The mid-March meeting between OPEC, Russia and other major producers offers
a window of opportunity for Iran to increase production gradually, since the
major nations have agreed to a production freeze. On top of that, Russia is
planning to offer a different deal to Iran, which will allow it to ramp up its
production to pre-sanction levels.
The lifting of sanctions couldn't have come at a better time for Iran. It
is benefitting from the strong bounce in oil, and it is unlikely to face huge
competition, barring U.S. exports, if the production freeze is adhered to by
the major oil producers.
Tehran has cause for celebration, indeed. This was clear when Iranian Oil
Minister Bijan
Zanganeh said : "We look forward to the beginning of co-operation between
Opec and non-Opec countries and we support any measure that can stabilise the
market and increase prices."
The world can take comfort from the fact that Iran has not flooded the market
with cheap oil as previously envisaged by the experts. Capturing market share
is one thing, but there are internal needs to consider as well.
"... The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity. ..."
"... The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment. ..."
"... This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done? ..."
Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War tensions with Russia by ordering
saber-rattling by the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato? Professor Steven Cohen,
writing in The Nation (2-29-16), says Obama is escalating the tensions with Russia in an
unprecedented manner not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are being
basically ignored by the mass media and none of the presidential candidates in either party have
addressed them in the debates except indirectly (Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump
mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).
The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400% military expenditures and deployments on or
near the Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge concentration of Western military power
on the Russian border has not been seen in modern times -- not even at the height of the Cold
War. Cohen says Russia will have to respond by its own build-up including the positioning of
advanced missiles. Thus the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox, increasing the
probability of a regional war or worse if some minor incident flares up.
This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his
generals (the type of behavior a future President Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being
capable of initiating). Why is this coming at the very time Russia is trying to de-escalate
tensions with the U.S.?
The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a
truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists
against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the
situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in
overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing
anti-Russian regime.
Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian
aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical
political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds
up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further
endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity.
The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in
the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the
march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea.
The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big
losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited
by the U.S. ruling establishment.
The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect. There is a slight possibility the dire
consequences enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and that would be the election of
Bernie Sanders as president. This event would open up progressive political action outside of the
control of the establishment and could lead to a democratic renaissance in the U.S. The Left -
Progressive movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some fringe elements). Unfortunately,
the Left cannot agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory for the establishment and
there is no third party that the Left is willing to unite behind.
This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the
military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense"
spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace
agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue
but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for
the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the
establishment. What is to be done?
Born Lake Worth, FL 1942. Educated FSU and Graduate Center CUNY. Currently teaching philosophy
in NYC. Associate editor of Political Affairs online.
"... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
"... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
"... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
"... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
"... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
"... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
"... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
"... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
"... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
"... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists
from around the world, including representatives of the western media.
Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two
hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace
talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations
with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.
This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the
US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion),
most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being
necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."
It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident.
It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This
doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that
the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader
within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,
"[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that
holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role
or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."
Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine
reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions
are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.
Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop,
before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony.
If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet,
incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West.
No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager
as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout
of reporting it in the West.
Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.
Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official
and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those
who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big
Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events
unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information.
In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the
US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not
fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.
A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where
tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited
understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own
leaders' actions on the world stage.
However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries
that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly,
their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government,
but the general direction has been toward greater openness.
Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World"
– has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower
version of what their governments have been up to internationally.
The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries
(the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy.
Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your
home and robbed you of all your freedoms.
The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the
attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world
dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.
This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with
this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression,
it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.
And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group
of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort
to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed
to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its
Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average
individual does not share this pathology.
Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can
be assured of two things.
First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment,
or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched
that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.
Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace
and well-being of the population.
In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each
time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will
be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on
the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."
Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have
become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders,
who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.
"to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To
combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The
boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."
Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to
the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of
the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000
new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?
The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned
the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't
help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.
It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and
off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize.
One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..
Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone
on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.
Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.
We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took
the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych,
and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger
was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity
program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad
regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their
insolence.
Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian
propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia
illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian
soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.
Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western
propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing
an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo
Orwellian.
"... What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
"... Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours. ..."
"... I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home. ..."
"... No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire. ..."
The Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems
we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates
are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is
one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."
What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs
like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than
the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total
spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration
the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at
the peak of the Cold War.
Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about
one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less
than 25 percent of ours.
Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South
China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed
Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area
around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use
of the US military?
The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least
seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed
in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?
I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be
rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according
to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about
protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments
who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it
can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild
the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback
here at home.
No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military
in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make
the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons
who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand
that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of
non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our
military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the
defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.
"... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
"... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
"... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
"... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
"... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
"... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
"... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
"... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
"... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
"... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
"... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
"... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%".
Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.
Other questions:
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?
This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be
copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the
neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation
process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others
like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if
studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real
democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems
worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's
'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach
what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness
of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious
economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if
we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and
all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending
blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution'
is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics
that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death
to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy'
(again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one
that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist
corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist
projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to
seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic
awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must
support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values
by voting class-consciously.
The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power
is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only
people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but
not beaten.
One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating,
is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination
economic empire is the goal.
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course
they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and
global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put
forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see
the whole electoral mirage for what it is.
All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago.
The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of
how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing
else.
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and
their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than
ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing,
especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean
is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are
all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office
which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election
is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet
if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court
which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively.
The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent
is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth.
Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.
Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say,
what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from
this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand
how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment),
but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe
the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us
terminally confused and fragmented.
Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago.
I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does
the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid
support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that
be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises
and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.
Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is
weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept.
It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show.
What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses
effect.
New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created.
People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa
can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations
on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything
for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more
acute.
Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN
labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly
states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the
modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking
forward to the others.
Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ?
"Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking
from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's
comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it
into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary
to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media
during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here
is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think
we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29]
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate
that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30]
However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program
and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the
racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy.
Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more
insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes
here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying
cry"!
Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office
buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails;
SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies
afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries
to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties
are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we
are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation
of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent?
While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.
What about
populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth.
Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass
along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism
advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family
cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny,
exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs
control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation.
While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while
skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires
we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are
calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked
to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman
said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among
other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did
not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged
with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them
to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable
by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month
trial, can be appealed.
So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays
silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent
before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal
trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in
the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism)
has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or
even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm
of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign
appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation
it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful
yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru
history 'The 99%'...).
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old
evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion
more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE,
and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving.
As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational
tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation
into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition
of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating
a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out
of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our
movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS
that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment:
to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down
the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote
Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because
this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.
I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary
can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates
at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests
as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all
over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable
voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy
war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice.
Vote Sanders.
You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective
changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today,
we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage
that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and
one percent end-up controlling everything.
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations
which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without
oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy
that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must
highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation
the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are
at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements
become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.
He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking
down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit
opportunism.
Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's
daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's
congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
"... Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America. ..."
"... Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. ..."
"... In a recent article , Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage." ..."
"... violence creates terrorists ..."
"... The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens. ..."
Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians
by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian
populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the
Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United
States of America.
Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack
on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by
the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans
are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.
The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for
enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.
In a recent
article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of
civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical
centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral
conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard
of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."
If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals,
it is too muted to be heard in the US.
As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit
the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US
and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification
- despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say
anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven
to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to
give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked
up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply
with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands
without endangering innocents.
Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists
is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool
understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of
fools.
The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the
strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to
the American people themselves.
The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government
has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and
its own citizens.
There is perhaps no more perverse relationship in the world than that which exists between
the West and Saudi Arabia - or, "the ISIS that made it," as Kamel Daoud, a columnist for
Quotidien d'Oran, and the author of "The Meursault Investigation"
calls the kingdom.
We've been over and over the glaring absurdity inherent in the fact
that the US and its partners consider the kingdom to be an "ally" in the fight against terrorism
and you can read more in the article linked above, but the problem is quite simply this:
the Saudis promote and export an ultra orthodox, ultra puritanical brand of Sunni Islam that is virtually
indistinguishable from that espoused by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other militant groups the
world generally identifies with "terrorism."
Wahhabism - championed by the Saudis - is poisonous, backward, and fuels sectarian strife
as well as international terrorism. That's not our opinion. It's a fact.
But hey, Riyadh has all of the oil, so no harm, no foul right?
Even as the very same ideals exported by Riyadh inspire the ISIS jihad, the kingdom
is so sure it has the political world in its pocket that it sought a seat on the UN Human Rights
Council, even as the country continues to carry out record numbers of executions.
They even had the nerve to establish what they called a
34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism in December. Of course the members don't
include Shiite Iran (the Saudis' mortal enemy) or Shiite Iraq, both of which are actually
fighting terror rather than bombing civilians in Yemen and engaging in Wahhabist proselytizing.
But while everyone in the world is well aware of just how silly the "alliance" is, the farce will
apparently continue as French President Francois Hollande on Friday awarded Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Naif France's highest national honor, the Legion of Honor for "for his efforts in the
region and around the world to combat extremism and terrorism."
"... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
"... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
"... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
"... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
"... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
"... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
"... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
"... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
"... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
"... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
"... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
"... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
"... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
"... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
"... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
"... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
"... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
"... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
"... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
"... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
"... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
"... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
"... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
"... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
"... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
"... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
"... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
"... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
"... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
"... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
"... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
"... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
"... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
"... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
"... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
"... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
"... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
"... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
"... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
"... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
"... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
"... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
"... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
"... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
"... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
"... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
"... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
"... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
"... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
"... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
"... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
"... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
"... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
"... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL!
He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.
you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights
movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces
by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive
movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win
in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time
voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders'
immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary
Establishment can't control.
This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger
problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its
politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding
of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the
U.S..
Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters
would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and
have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African
Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise
of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans
come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system
is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's
not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.
Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must
be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes
Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation
of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives
Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election
cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much
more than electoral politics.
That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows
that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes
very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say,
"overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election
to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even
though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around
to see the fruits of those efforts.
To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform,
this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are
SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity
that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue
of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand
that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the
country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.
The South has a totally different labor
history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class
has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders,
who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me
started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays
into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really
knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina)
is unfair.
Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their
vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't
exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety
net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met.
This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists
don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes
in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the
best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest"
movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.
Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead
to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch
Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far.
What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win
a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate
numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where
Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana,
Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.
Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.
Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the
South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might
have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed
there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the
MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and
the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by
15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.
So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with
the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's
strong showing look weak. Not the case.
There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.
The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters
that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.
Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return
to the 1990s.
States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the
early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving
those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.
In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates
to choose where to spend their time and resources.
Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover,
a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise
their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and
institutional backing of the party establishment.
So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have
their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.
For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates
and all of their Super Delegates.
So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place.
I rest my case.
Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little
difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people
do. Yes, really.
He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans,
between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest
hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.
But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and
he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes
moderate and conservative whites.
While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65
in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who
are for Bernie is not true.
In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie
is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while
Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up
with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a
year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.
Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent
of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill]
Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.
How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority
voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's
ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small
percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little
beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect
any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program,
or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know
enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor
what she has sad and done TO them.
I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you
might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold
that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their
own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media
by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance
and mocking his losses in southern republican states?
You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade
policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?
What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?
Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies
at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing!
Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What
about anti-semitism?
You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical
and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic
order?
Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with,
and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days
runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein
of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching
orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up
the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.
The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black
states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?
It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California
in their process.
Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that
a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.
African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary
will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to
play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.
Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents
and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up
FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for
being leftists
The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate
Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible?
or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased
in your assesment?
Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit
older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection
is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that
Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear,"
it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't
seem to give them that.
American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse"
isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions.
I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people
who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the
outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.
Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about
your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't
all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"
The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump
Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count
is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win*
California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has
to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results
across the south. That is not going to happen.
If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests),
it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary
is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that
person is Clinton.
Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social
Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters
wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.
If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?
What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs
the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate
out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the
entire party and the nomination process in her favor.
We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying,
the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs,
mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in
society.
Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie
has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least
it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought
I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun.
I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado
supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary
Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton;
the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders
here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries
doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but
keep your powder dry.
In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign
done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic
candidate.
It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion,
but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his
wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%.
As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority
don't matter.
1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed
to simply do their bidding.
Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap
on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority
of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that
they're done it.
Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading
foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton
will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg
just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.
It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about
of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.
A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has
a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell
you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.
We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered
the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning
for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites.
The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton.
http://iac.com/about/leadership
The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure
to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary
- from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary.
It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the
USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first
black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his
last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well
have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The
Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats.
He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.
Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street
and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America
for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken
was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will
be adorned by a downright moron.
Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when
class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly
with race.
Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and
die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are
not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.
Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does
it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds
Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She
already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and
she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose
her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's
the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if
she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put
a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking
terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for
Bernie.
So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also
of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers
need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in
the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts
to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then
try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have
bought it, hook, line and sinker
Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating
both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year.
At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then
went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say
his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going
to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that
are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that
Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders
is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial,
there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock
insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383
total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous.
The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their
mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most
delegates through primaries and caucus'.
The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent
analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations.
Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled
media address people like Bernie Sanders:
http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%)
when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30%
LESS than in 2008:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race
/
The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000
votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the
primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly
undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates,
at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the
Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he
can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign
/), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not
Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See,
we told you- You should have listened to us."
There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the
Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes
the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political
establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected
environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving
for. #Feelthatbern
Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear.
Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and
they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and
stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected
to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves.
The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail
them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado?
You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to
keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up
with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist.
Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's
historic.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
"He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy
will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change
when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents,
may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard
the wired person of the 21st century."
We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through
it now.
So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home
to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters)
than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
"Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender
faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid
of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know
there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they
don't want to be punished."
1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak
out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow
you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if
elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse
than that).
To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control
the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise
a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to
go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes
it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track
record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment
candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment.
Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most
from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political
campaigns are their CASH COW.
But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect
than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would
never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did
you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original
on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability
to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family.
she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just
because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what
we need at this point).
First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau
Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.
The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine.
Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?
Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is
one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the
level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the
ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction
by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency?
Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies...
.
Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing
scheming? I suppose it's possible.
But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been
1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton (
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be
). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level
of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.
As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The
right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?".
He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party
for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the
kiss of death right there.
They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone*
could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.
Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from
the Democratic Party, and that's that.
With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never
go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment
hearings, tax problems, etc.
Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton,
their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating
Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted
Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy
in the race.
Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There
are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could
go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy
that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.
If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote
for Hillary?
Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am
considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest
the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she
is the nominee.
I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to
be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election
and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they
publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just
been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues
at hand.
I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading
between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain
in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.
Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian
voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually
on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia,
a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue
card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how
she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate,
Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing
a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC,
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest
enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over
the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't
think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other
liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to
not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.
I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster
like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian,
doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and
move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and
control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate,
muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones
and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.
"Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors
duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."
Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare
resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters
here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed
racists!
-the full support of the DNC
-25 years of media celebrity
- a popular ex-president campaigning for her
-a swooning corporate media
-cabinet experience
-endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent
congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
-a bottomless campaign war chest
And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .
The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't
be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton
would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are
desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is
2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly
progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams,
compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that
Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed
when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't
know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are
a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary
believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.
John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing
on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying
it all together.
Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for
the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...
Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic
communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping
the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to
the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet.
Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage
of Sanders.
" to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"
Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind
her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich
was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.
You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only
beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton.
Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid
under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general
if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation
people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening
grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's
on the ropes!" Every day.
It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign
narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores
them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets
past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested
fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage
at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he
waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion,
the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw
black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters.
It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches
for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look
at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the
longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who
Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for
example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton,
as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you
account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities
like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she
enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment
in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious
amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this,
instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial
minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and
irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen
racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more
to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent
flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly
or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something
she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly
is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going
to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders
is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the
last few months.
I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by
and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From
three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping
American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing
the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably
true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?
Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to
begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes
himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.
as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you
"rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative
democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one
of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the
civil rights movement.
Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than
that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of
all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension
much?
When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated",
you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.
As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment
years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV
Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's
the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he
has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or
hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities
is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down
on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory
of the women's right to vote 100 years ago.
For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.
Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement
package.
35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the
media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative
states that are never going to go Democratic.
But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African
American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.
So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment,
and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you
ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by
the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate
like Shillary.
Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are
others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And
yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people.
This is totally a divisive tactic.
I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok
but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought
about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat
Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires
and billonaires. Bully for him!
You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed
to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill
This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders
leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.
I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense -
that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately,
factually inaccurate based on actual polling.
nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.
Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and
canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home
and saved a few bucks.
Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually
or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false
dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).
So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him
be our next president.
Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.
Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs
up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now
so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or
something.
Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file.
And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the
enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is
their guy is a monster.
I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's
addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing,
police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders
has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally
make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
" I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders
calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white
voters since the Oscars ."
Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power.
It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old,
same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude
the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering
so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that
sector's younger voters that want real change.
"Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still
won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and
independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin
in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's
home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time
primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders
captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points
in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."
I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites
only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly
a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie
and his issues might be better known by more people.
In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year.
I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other
person, the fake Bernie.
"Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic
candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself
generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is
still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine,
Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin,
New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June,
California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign
raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received
$6 million on Monday alone.
3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take
back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the
way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there,
too)."
And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE
been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual
cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the
national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know
that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin
Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd
go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate
Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.
This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....
And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine
pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big
donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to
vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....
And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump
and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.
Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.
The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst
enemy and may yet fall at the gate.
The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her
with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes!
In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!
Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the
'08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay
marriage?
She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not
forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include
$1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!
She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for
purpose
Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased,
it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is
the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on
South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look
at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3
GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire
which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states
came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go.
Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next
few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie,
look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that
it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders
enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving
the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate
before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young
Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black
President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian
Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living
below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill
like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting
mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated.
But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support
another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full
throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes
us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents
to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs
overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what
the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups
desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics.
Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought
for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the
rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is
what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing
out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics
:
From Real Clear Politics :
Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections
since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election.
In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning
southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which
is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia.
Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.
"
So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern
states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.
"The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage."
That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace
the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain custrumers – and they
urgently need the income.
The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.
"The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers
on short notice"
Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts
and long gas supply lines. It is like marriage :-)
"The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."
I am not sure that this is the case.
"Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters
in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."
The EU's domestic production of natural gas, including non-EU member Norway, is already in
terminal decline and will be declining into the future by almost 2% per year until it reaches
zero.
Unless the EU can find alternative sources of natural gas at competitive prices, Russia remains
the only economical option, hence the extremely high stakes over the Syrian War.
Moreover, the EU's "Green Energy" policies are an outright, insolvent disaster. Windmills and
solar panels can never and will never compete with hydrocarbons and don't let any muppet claim
otherwise. If wind and solar were anywhere remotely viable sources then why would anyone give
a toss over the Middle East at all? The degree to which "alternative energy" is uneconomical can
be seen from the EU's extremely high energy costs, far and away the highest in the world. In their
fanatical crusade against Russia, the EU countries have opted for a catastrophic energy policy
that has rendered them global economic growth laggards. All this, just so that Russia's gas exports
could be kept at the absolute minimum.
What Russia seeks to achieve vis-a-vis Europe, is to force/encourage/compel the EU to integrate
by as much as possible with Russia. What NATO (and especially the US and Euro-Atlanticists) most
fear is that a Russia rich in capital and technology would be the world's dominant geopolitical
player.
This is what is at stake in the current Global Hybrid War.
"... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
"... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
"... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
"... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
"... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
"... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
"... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
"... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and
consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states
on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie
Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for
"convenience."
Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just
given immunity by the Justice Department. According to
The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to
his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."
First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department
granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The
Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved
with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat
in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or
31,830 deleted emails.
These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.
Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person
is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano
pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in
Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in
early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated
in
The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges
and, if so, against whom."
... ... ...
In addition to
born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining
the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well
as
Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never
explained the political utility of owning a private server.
Why did Hillary need to own a private server?
Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government
networks?
... ... ...
There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps
the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their
recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a
Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton
email server:
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked
on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation
into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement
official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's
2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely
to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server,
how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information
in emails, current and former officials said.
... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's
attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it
criminal wrongdoing?"
... ... ...
As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's
Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants
immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:
Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted
an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators,
a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.
With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their
focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified
matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.
.... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as
stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:
The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens
of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.
At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said
he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an
effort to learn more about those emails...
Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified
at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the
State Department-led pre-release review process.
Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof
of
born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
believes Hillary Clinton should
"drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.
... ... ....
Tim Black
Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member
I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton
not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'.
Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.
This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking
me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!
Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is
no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had
been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held
accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods
sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.
Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed
O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's
pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.
Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California
I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just
so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her
aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This
says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.
This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may
be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen.
Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.
No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.
Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean
that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought
they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the
shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton
email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.
Thats not an assumption-its
a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000
emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest
level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.
The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton
foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the
huge REAL as opposed to emails
Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a
crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had
evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify
about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even
on this small fish.
This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his
attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not
going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues
outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about.
It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his
campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges.
My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic.
My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients
have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.
There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political
assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest
here, as they are involved.
"... a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project. ..."
"... The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. ..."
"... They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers. ..."
Sophie Shevardnadze:So I am here with activist Kenneth O'Keefe, it's really
great to have you on our show. Kenneth, I know that you've led a human shield action in Iraq, right
before the war started and then you were deported – do you follow what's going on in Iraq right now?
For example, the November death toll was almost 1,000 and 2013 is the deadliest year since 2008.
Why do you think the removal of Saddam hasn't improved the lives of Iraqis? – Or has it? I don't
know…
Kenneth O'Keefe: Well, I think if you really want to know the truth about the
invasion in Iraq, there are clearly some incentives from the invasion: oil, securing oil was one
of them, establishing prominent military bases in the region was another one, but the far less talked
about reality is Israeli plans which made clear that the Balkanization of surrounding countries and
particularly Iraq, if we go to Odid Yinon's plan for Israel in the 1980s, it lays out very clearly
a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan,
Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project,
so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very
well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project.
SS: Why would Israel benefit from an unstable Middle East, unstable Arab nations?
Because what we see is that this instability actually is followed by fundamental Islam. People who
are overthrown are either replaced by fundamentalist powers or there's just more sectarian violence
that grows…
KK: Yes, if would seem on the surface from a sane point of view that everything
is going wrong, but in fact, when you fracture a country along sectarian divides, ultimately you
weaken the country. The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist
who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for
the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. While you
have these religious fundamentalist nutcases who are running around bombing and doing all sorts of
stuff like that, you have a weakened, fractured country in Iraq, and that is the prerequisite for
ultimately expanding Israel into a fantasy of a Greater Israel project. It doesn't seem sane and
it's not sane because those who are trying to carry out these agendas are pure and simple psychopaths.
SS: So you think that American administrations, one after another, have been
following this plan for 30 years?
KK: If you ask me how the world functions, then you have to understand one thing
plain and simple – the head of the snake, the system of power is headed by the financial system.
The bankers rule the Earth, through the private control of issuance of money, debt-based money which
we all are supposed to pay. Ultimately with all of these things that they call "austerity"
and whatnot, the bankers, basically, through the control of issuance of money which allows them
to provide themselves with an infinite supply of money, means that they can buy anything and anyone
that can be bought – so if we look at it, the vast majority of governments around the world, they
are nothing more than puppets carrying out an agenda for the bankers, and the bankers at the top
of this pyramid are, as I've said, plain and simple psychopath
They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy
anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government
we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and
simple, the interests of the bankers.
SS: So if what you're saying is true, that governments obey the big banks
and the big money, then it would really take the people and a revolution in each country that you
have named to actually change things around. Do you really see revolution taking place in America,
for example?
KK: It's already happening. I'll give you a great example why I'm optimistic
about things in America. You know that the president of the US, traitor that he is, is actually a
constitutional lawyer? He actually has trained at the highest levels [of academia] in constitutional
law. Do you know how obscene it is that somebody who was trained in constitutional law, giving himself
the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, in any part of the planet with no jury, no trial, no conviction,
nothing – this man is a dictator who has assigned himself the right to execute anyone, including
US citizens. I am confident that at some point the American patriots, who seem to be in a bit of
a coma and have been sleeping for a long time, are going to wake up soon and realize that when they
took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, the president of the US also took that oath and
has breached it so badly that he should be arrested and charged with treason right now – and ultimately
all of the sycophants of the US Congress who pass things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, again,
completely a contrary to the US constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
These people need to be arrested, and a government needs to be put in place that actually honors
the US Constitution, and I honestly believe that's going to happen, one way or another.
... ... ...
SS: So you actually bring me to my next point, which is Syria. You're saying
the allegations in the Western press that it wasn't Syria but Iran that was the actual goal, the
final goal, are true. What happens now if Assad starts to look like he is finally achieving a decisive
victory, how will the US respond, do you think?
KK: Again, keep in mind that the real problem that Assad faces is that, well,
yes, there are major human rights violations that happen in Syria and then in every other Arab country,
and the US and the Western world – ultimately there are human rights violations of obscene levels,
especially in the US. So they are in no position to talk about other leaders – our leaders, the US
president can execute anyone, anywhere, anytime – and he does. So how can we talk about Bashar Al-Assad
seriously and say that this man is a problem…
SS: Oh, Kenneth, they will talk about that and [say] the world listens to
the American president, that's the difference. They will talk about that, they keep talking about
it. That was the whole purpose of why they wanted to overthrow Assad, because there were supposedly
human rights violations in Syria.
KK: The point that I'm making is that the US has given himself the authority
to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime for any pretext, any bogus reason. Is that more of a problem
to the world than Bashar Al-Assad? Of course it is! It's much more of a problem that the president
of the US says he can execute anyone, anywhere anytime, and yet we're sitting here talking about
Bashar Al-Assad which, granted, this man has committed crimes in Syria, there's no question of that.
But when we look at the US president, when we look at Israel, we look at Britain – that alliance,
this true Axis of Evil between these three countries. The amount of devastation that has occurred
in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other parts of world – Yemen, Pakistan – it's so devastating, I think
its beggars belief that we as people can be conned into thinking that Bashar Al-Assad is the problem,
or that Ahmadinejad was the problem. We are the problem; we in the West are the problem, especially
the US government. It really is quite ridiculous that we get manipulated into saying, "Oh, we
have to take care of this problem over there." The problem is in our own backyard, and we know
this. We better take care of our dirty, filthy House of corruption. The US Congress is nothing but
a den of traitors, the most sycophantic, disgusting traitors you can imagine, and the White House
has got a dictator. This is a problem; this is a major problem, a much bigger problem than what's
happening in Syria or Bashar Al-Assad.
SS: Now, you have great knowledge and strong opinions about events in the
Middle East. Iran has recently softened its attitude toward its opponent after decades of deadlock.
Israel is annoyed. How do you see that developing?
KK: I think it's a reflection of the sanity of people around the world who realize
that any kind of attack on Iran is tantamount to initiating a full-scale Third World War, which of
course could very well and almost inevitably would lead to a war with China and Russia. This is pure
madness and those of us who've lost loved ones or who have served in combat like myself, and others
who know the devastating cost of war, not just for the so-called "victor" – because the
only victor really is the bankers, quite frankly – but even those who are supposedly on the winning
side suffer greatly, and testimony to that fact aside from 1 million to 2 million dead in Iraq is
the 22 American servicemen a day who are committing suicide because of the horrendous things that
they were told to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy, this shift in policy to actually
resolve this conflict with Iran, this false conflict, in truth – is a reflection of the will of the
people, if you ask me, who are starting to achieve their goal.
SS: You think Netanyahu is bluffing, because I've spoken to a couple of Israeli
parliamentarians, I've spoken to Israelis – and they all are for a strike.
KK: No, I don't think he is bluffing, he is an absolute psychopath and he reflects
the agenda for the powers that be in Israel. Each one of these players – Netanyahu, George W. Bush,
Obama, Cameron – they are all puppets and they all are supposed to read a different script at different
times, depending on what the agenda is. The agenda is shifting slightly. It looks like Israel and
the people of Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, are like sheep being led into slaughter, because
ultimately the policies of Israel are completely and totally unsustainable. Even the CIA said in
2009 that Israel would not even exist within 20 years. Henry Kissinger himself said it wouldn't exist
in 10 years, and the reason why is because its policies are totally self-destructive. The puppet
masters are quite happy to sacrifice the people of Israel, they are going to destroy themselves if
they do attack Iran, because Iran can fight back and does have allies, and a lot of countries are
sick and tired of Israel's threats to both its immediate neighbors and even the rest of the world.
When we look at the Samson Option, I encourage people to Google "Samson Option" and look
at the threat Israel has posed to the world if things don't go its way.
SS: When you talk about the US, [it's] Israel's main supporter – but right
now we see that it's kind of open to Iran as well, knowing, how much anxiety that raises among Israelis
– what does it tell you about the US?
KK: It tells me that people are beginning to realize their power. I think there
are things that correlate – the approval rating for Barack Obama and the US Congress is as low as
it's possible to get, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent, 20 percent maximum. The people
have come to a point where they are sick and tired of being lied to, they know they are being lied
to, and when they see their so-called leaders try to cooperate with Israel and get another war that
would lead to disastrous consequences for the region and for the US and every other person involved
– they've had it. The reflection of the policies is indeed that of the people, it's the people who
are sick and tired. I do see that there is some demarcation going on between Israel and the US, but
this is because the power of people is rising - and as we saw on Syria, the Congress and the president
were all basically saying, "The red line was crossed, blah-blah-blah," and this blatantly
false flag attack in Ghouta in Syria has backfired, they were not able to carry out this agenda,
and this is only empowering the people that much further.
SS: So you think Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear program?
KK: I think it's absolutely hypocritical and insane that we would sit here and
fixate on Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program, which I don't believe exists, but nonetheless,
who could blame Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons? If the US and the West taught any lessons
to the rest of the world with the invasion and occupation of Iraq it was that Saddam Hussein was
a fool for actually disarming, because by disarming all he did was make that much easier for the
empire to come in and destroy the entire country. So the lesson we teach to the world is that the
best way to defend yourself is to get yourself a nuclear weapon, and of course the biggest culprit
of using nuclear weapons and producing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is my birth
nation, the US, and I find it absolute insane that we sit here and talk about Iran's supposed nuclear
weapons program when we know the US is producing every kind of weapon under this sun. It is spending
more than any other military on the planet combined, and it's involved in more war, more death and
more suffering than any other nation combined. And yet it's sitting there on a pedestal talking about
other nations developing weapons of mass destruction? It is insane that we even allow them to do
this, the first nation that needs to disarm without questions is the US, and the first nation to
be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity is my birth nation – the United States. Once
we start seeing actions like this, then we'll know the people in positions of power are serious,
because ultimately the rest of the world is sick and tired of the impunity and continuous threats
of a Third World War. We've reached the point now when human beings around the planet are realizing
we can't do this. We can't have a Third World War, this is not a game.
SS: But you haven't answered my question – do you think Iran should be able
to develop its nuclear program?
KK: I think that every nation should disarm right now, every nation that has
a weapons program should be inspected by a legitimate international body and those nations with the
highest amount of WMDs, nuclear weapons should be the first ones to start disarming. When those nations
start disarming, then I would say that the rest of the world will also have to show that it's disarming
as well. While the US is able to maintain the largest military might in the history of the world
and continues to use those weapons against all other countries, I only see it as a pure hypocrisy
that the West would say that other countries can't have such things. I don't want any weapons in
this world, but it's not right for us in the West and particular for the US to say that we can have
all these weapons and for the rest of the world – we'll bomb you to the Stone Age if you even try
to think to defend yourself. It's beyond hypocrisy, it's ridiculous. The US needs to disarm first,
and the world needs to assist on that.
SS: I've read in your blog that you said this world needs one thing above
all others – and that's sanity. But doesn't sanity depend on what side of the argument you're on?
KK: No, I think we were all sane when we were children and unfortunately what
passes as education is actually an indoctrination and through indoctrination we've turned into really
largely a bunch of dupes who've enslaved ourselves without even knowing it, but when you regain the
capacity to think for yourself, to actually become human, it becomes very clear. For instance, if
we look at these politicians who are historically lying to us, over and over and over again, and
we realize that the war-making are absolutely inherently interested in perpetuating war, and if we
look at the people in the positions of power, we see how they continuously reap major bonuses with
the banks – they get bailouts to the tune of trillions and yet we're being told that we're not working
hard enough, that we're in debt. All of these things combined lead us to the point when we reach
a certain level of sanity, and realize: "You know what? This entire system does not represent
me," and in fact every person on this planet is fighting the same enemy. That enemy uses the
financial system to enslave all of us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; in fact more
and more people are figuring this out. A point of sanity brings us to the point when we realize:
"Enough, this is a game that cannot be played, we're risking our own collective suicide here
and as a sane person I will not contribute in any way towards this never-ending policy of war which
is leading us to the brink of destruction". This is not about being intelligent, this is about
being sane first and foremost. The average person can understand this very easily.
"... The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr. Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel ..."
here is some good news. You have heard it first from me here on POB 2 weeks ago. We are moving
in direction of restoring the prices to acceptable level that major producers can live temporarily.
"The meeting of oil-producing countries will be held on March 20th in Russia, the Minister
of oil of Nigeria, Emmanuel Kachikwu, announced. According to him, it will be attended by representatives
of countries who are OPEC members and countries that are not members in the organization. Mr.
Kachikwu noted that producers seek to restore oil prices to $50 per barrel."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washingtons legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... The Saudis geopolitical goal is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdoms principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe. ..."
"... But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar Assad. In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way weve done it previously in other places [Iraq], theyll carry the cost. Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): With respect to Arab countries offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly yes, they have. The offer is on the table. ..."
"... Gazproms gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014 ..."
Stockman's Tales of western intervention into the ME Oil Puzzle.
"The Trumpster Sends The GOP/Neocon Establishment To The Dumpster"
"And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet"
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its
tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since
August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex,
the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the
foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect
to the safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein
and the Emir of Kuwait.
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive
for the oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA.
Roosevelt's replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination
plot against the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five
years later, the CIA finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath
Party in power in Iraq. A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the distinguished
leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team.
… … …
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline,
which would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic
and political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious
to end its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub
for Asian fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative
Sunni monarchy by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal
is to contain the economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite
state, and close ally of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite
takeover in Iraq (and, more recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion
to its regional power status and was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen,
highlighted by the Saudi genocide against the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians, who sell 70 percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the
Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat. In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO
plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its only foothold in the Middle East, strangle
the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European energy market. In 2009, Assad
announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline to run through Syria
"to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
… … …
But the Sunni kingdoms with vast petrodollars at stake wanted a much deeper involvement
from America. On September 4, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry told a congressional hearing
that the Sunni kingdoms had offered to foot the bill for a U.S. invasion of Syria to oust Bashar
Assad. "In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the
whole thing, the way we've done it previously in other places [Iraq], they'll carry the cost."
Kerry reiterated the offer to Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.): "With respect to Arab countries
offering to bear the costs of [an American invasion] to topple Assad, the answer is profoundly
yes, they have. The offer is on the table."
"The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage."
That is nonsense. The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace
the European customers on short notice – pipeline chain producer to certain customers – and they
urgently need the income.
The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades.
"The issue is that Russia has quite limited leverage: They can not replace the European customers
on short notice"
Leverage is always mutual in the gas trade that involves long term contracts and long gas supply
lines. It is like marriage :-)
"The more interesting question for Russia is how to cope with a customers who may reduce the
demand for NG by 1% per year for the next few decades."
I am not sure that this is the case.
"Gazprom's gas exports to Europe – including Turkey – had increased to 158.6 billion cubic
meters in 2015 with a 8.2 percent increase compared to 2014."
A really interesting analyses
of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate
that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
Notable quotes:
"... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. ..."
"... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders. ..."
"... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
"... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
"... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years. ..."
"... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
"... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran." ..."
"... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. ..."
"... Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." ..."
"... The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria." ..."
"... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
"... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people
yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates
any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American
public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound
the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria.
But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key
combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly
President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State
training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York
Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic
planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this
will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic
world against America.
To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly
the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising
that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War
weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria
by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of
both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance
in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime,
and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled
that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's
speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic
Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination
following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied
leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war
against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were
often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the
Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy,
sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast.
The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan,
Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the
American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA
for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in
the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to
American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without
the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would
treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and
Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for
our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our
own ideals-within their borders.
***
For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about
this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles
brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty
proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead,
they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly
when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants
in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies
thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the
CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised
the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo
recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed
oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman
Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered
a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the
Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.
The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation.
Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted
a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically
elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American
project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In
his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's
lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the
CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to
dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and
a half months into his regime.
Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried
democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War
neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp.
That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his
two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.
Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically
elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided
contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first
elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing
world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence
officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his
advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British
plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such
perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively
joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately
unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah
Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward
his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has
bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.
Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with
$3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians
to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy:
The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions
of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General
Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong
arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim
Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and
create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control.
Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive
measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The
Guardian newspaper.
... ... ...
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the
oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's
replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against
the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA
finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.
A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the
distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according
to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author.
Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to
be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged
that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."
... ... ...
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end
its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian
fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy
by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the
economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally
of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more
recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and
was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against
the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians,
who sell 70
percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat.
In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its
only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European
energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline
to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as
mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground
troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican
pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of
Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada,
a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents,
published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and
funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied
regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain,
invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at
U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines
were
financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order
to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's
lexicon. A
damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen.
That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the
U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce
a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran."
As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni
strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers
to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers
of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further
destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates
was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were
commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters.
By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining
forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed
by the U.S.
Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad,
U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists
who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria
and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a
seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing
group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical
Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful
protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper
notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political
powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources
with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and
Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report
appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there
is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria
(Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in
order to isolate the Syrian regime."The Pentagon report warns that this new principality
could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its
union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied
by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.
Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State.
To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement
is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.
In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational
successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and
Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George
W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act
of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated
the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni,
government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man
army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property,
wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily
armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning
in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.
In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins
of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members
of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons."
The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting
these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me
that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who
are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.
The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war.
They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and
the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing
pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation
minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future
that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
... ... ..
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is
Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.
A really interesting analyses
of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate
that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
Notable quotes:
"... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often
directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic
Charter was the road not taken. ..."
"... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms."
For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within
their borders. ..."
"... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to
approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi
Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts
that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a
coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im.
Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen
deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
"... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send
his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
"... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining
the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed
Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi,
who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people
from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign
policy for 35 years. ..."
"... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants
and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected
secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
"... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for
the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a
"divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran." ..."
"... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed
the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive
battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent
militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed
and effective fighters. ..."
"... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some
700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded
the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis
of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained
and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
"... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's
secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people
yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates
any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American
public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound
the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria.
But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key
combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly
President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State
training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York
Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic
planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this
will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic
world against America.
To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly
the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising
that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War
weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria
by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of
both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance
in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime,
and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled
that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's
speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic
Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination
following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied
leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war
against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were
often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the
Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy,
sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast.
The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan,
Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the
American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA
for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in
the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to
American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without
the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would
treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and
Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for
our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our
own ideals-within their borders.
***
For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about
this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles
brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty
proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead,
they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly
when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants
in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies
thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the
CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised
the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo
recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed
oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman
Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered
a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the
Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.
The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation.
Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted
a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically
elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American
project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In
his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's
lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the
CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to
dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and
a half months into his regime.
Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried
democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War
neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp.
That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his
two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.
Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically
elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided
contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first
elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing
world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence
officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his
advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British
plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such
perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively
joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately
unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah
Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward
his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has
bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.
Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with
$3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians
to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy:
The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions
of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General
Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong
arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim
Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and
create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control.
Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive
measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The
Guardian newspaper.
... ... ...
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the
oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's
replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against
the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA
finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.
A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the
distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according
to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author.
Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to
be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged
that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."
... ... ...
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end
its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian
fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy
by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the
economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally
of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more
recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and
was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against
the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians,
who sell 70
percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat.
In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its
only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European
energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline
to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as
mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground
troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican
pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of
Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada,
a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents,
published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and
funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied
regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain,
invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at
U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines
were
financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order
to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's
lexicon. A
damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen.
That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the
U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce
a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran."
As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni
strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers
to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers
of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further
destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates
was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were
commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters.
By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining
forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed
by the U.S.
Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad,
U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists
who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria
and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a
seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing
group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical
Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful
protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper
notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political
powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources
with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and
Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report
appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there
is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria
(Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in
order to isolate the Syrian regime."The Pentagon report warns that this new principality
could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its
union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied
by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.
Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State.
To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement
is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.
In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational
successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and
Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George
W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act
of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated
the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni,
government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man
army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property,
wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily
armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning
in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.
In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins
of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members
of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons."
The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting
these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me
that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who
are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.
The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war.
They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and
the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing
pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation
minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future
that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
... ... ..
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is
Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.
"... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
"... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
"... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
"... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
"... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
"... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
"... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and
fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author,
most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns
are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners
defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?
Can we choke down the fact that she
willingly took on that
rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed
audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal
that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated
that a female attorney would help his chances.)
Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in
jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped
her client cheat justice?
I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look
at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that
defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will
Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches
with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?
I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged
a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped
a woman with his very
own penis.
And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter,
or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally
deaf, dumb, and blind?
No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume
it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear
on Fox. Not when you can read
what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:
"I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth
now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that
[being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."
Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with
stone-faced killers like
Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")
Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power
after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.
We still think that our country is a
beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more
than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan
forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers
who warned
that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another
squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.
But we expect better.
So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.
We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all
the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she
might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering
loner who dresses up as a
clown and murders children, or a
late-term abortionist who collects
fetal feet as trophies.
But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some
four Americans out of a 100 are
in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings,
who do not experience guilt.
Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans
provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional
centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their
brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such
as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles.
And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.
I have known
a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence
of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made
excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.
That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself,
but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral
monster.
My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?
John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The
Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
Looks like Russian oil minister decided to play the role of a regular supply and demand jerk, may
be intentionally. Generally Russians unlike Chinese's behaved like idiots in this situation. Inread
of building state petroleum reserves like Chinese did and later selling oil later at reasonable prices
they continued to dump the oil on market helping Saudis to crash the price. Russia is still buying US
treasures instead as if oil is not as reliable as currency. Russia is the only major country that does
not have strategic oil reserves.
Alexander Novak mostly sounded like a regular member of the neoliberal cosmopolitan elite not as
a Russian oil minister who is interested in well-being of Russian citizens. As Soros aptly mentioned
such people have more in common with Wall Street financial oligarchs that with interests
of their own country.
Whether this was intentional of this is a his assumed position for Die Welt I do no know.
Notable quotes:
"... Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time, we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to financial markets. ..."
"... On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard, Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally. ..."
24.02.2016 | Die Welt/InoSMI
Russia is suffering from extremely low oil prices. Energy Minister Alexander Novak warned us
against the dramatic consequences of falling oil prices for the entire world. After the oversupply
of oil, according to him, a severe deficit is coming.
Die Welt: You have agreed with the oil Minister of Saudi Arabia on the limitation of oil
production. At first the market reacted to the results of your negotiations negativity and oil prices
continued to fall. What, in general, gives us this arrangement?
Alexander Novak: I Think our meeting with the colleagues from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela
were very productive. The main result was a preliminary agreement on limiting oil production in 2016
at the level of January of this year. The final decision will be made when this initiative will join
most other oil producers. In our view, this approach would gradually reduce the oversupply and stabilize
prices at a level that will ensure the stability of the industry in the long term.
- Let's assume that others will agree with this. However, experts believe that price stabilization
is necessary not just freeze, and a reduction in oil production.
- Such proposals are periodically received. But we think that this may soon lead to an abrupt
artificial increase in prices. Because such a rise in prices entails the inflow of speculative
money into capital-intensive projects, for example, in the production of shale oil that, in turn,
will lead to rapid increase of oil production and as a result another round of oil prices fall. Of
crucial importance is the level of prices at which US shale oil is unprofitable. If the oil price
moved higher higher, we will again be faced with the effect of plummeting oil prices. That is why
we need mutual consultation in order better to access the current supply and demand situation.
- But the decline in prices over the last 18 months ago is already having a serious negative
impact on producers with higher costs.
- Yes, albeit slower than expected. This is a change from previous oil price cycles, when only
the oil exporting countries influenced the market by voluntarily reducing the production. But after
the invention of the technology for shale gas extraction in 2009, the situation has changed.
- So you agree with the International energy Agency, believes that in 2016, contrary to expectations,
oil prices stabilize?
- In general yes. Because when in mid-2014 oil prices began to decline, many thought that soon
shale oil will fall prey of it. However, this did not happen. We can see that the price at around
$100 per barrel was too high, but shale oil companies for more then a year managed to withstood the
falling oil prices and continue oil extraction is volumes comparable with the volume at peak.
Demand and supply grow equally, and the gap between them did not became smaller. That's why in 2016
everyone is adjusting their predictions about the end of low oil prices regime.
Limited access to funding by high cost producers and delay in implementation of capital intensive
projects will play a role in the alignment of supply and demand in the market and the volume of oil
production outside OPEC, primarily in North America, will be reduced. For example, in the US, the
number of drilling rigs already has declined by two-thirds.
- Not only in the United States. All the world's leading oil companies reduced their investment
programs by 10-35%. What reductions we can expect in 2016?
- Given the pricing environment we expect in 2016 further reductions of 15-40%. Thus, this
year 30 largest companies in the world can cut $200 billion from capex budgets . At the same time,
we see that rise in in the price of the credit for oil producers in the US hinders their access to
financial markets.
- What can be the consequences of reducing investments in the foreseeable future?
- On a global scale in the short term, these effects will be minimal. However, in the medium
and long term they will be dramatic, because many of the cancelled projects were important
for stability of oil supply from the point of view of growing global demand, have been postponed
or frozen. So we can assumed that after 2020 a stable supply of oil is under threat. In this regard,
Russia seeks to remain a stable supplier of oil globally.
- Can Russia to help stabilize prices, "selling" to OPEC and other major producers the
idea to reduce production?
- We haven't made exact calculations. For Russia, this is a difficult question due to the technological
aspects of oil extraction, the current state of the projects under construction and climatic conditions.
You can understand our situation from a simple fact: Russia has more than 170 thousand wells, and
to reduce their number very difficult. And in the middle East much less wells: Saudi Arabia produces
the same amount of oil as we do, with only 3500 wells. In addition, our oil companies are independent
joint-stock companies which are independently planning the level of their own production.
- The head of the second largest Russian oil company LUKOIL Vagit Alekperov said recently that
the Russian oil sector is most afraid that the government will change tax rules for him.
- I share the opinion of the head of the Lukoil concern. We needs a stable tax system. Oil prices,
along with the ruble and so fell and to this created for oil companies the problems of financing
of the oil extraction. If in addition we change the rules of taxation, the future would
become impossible to predict and the companies would be unable to plan their activities for more
then one year. We in the last two years had introduced some tax breaks which should encourage the
production at new fields in Eastern Siberia and the far East. Their effect is already noticeable:
in 2015, we got from those fields additional 60 million tons.
- And in the Arctic region?
- This region now is off-limit due to the costs. But the investments in the extraction of Okhotsk
and Caspian seas have risen because they are attractive from the point of view of taxation. In the
long run we are - regardless of the dynamics of oil prices - will have to change the tax system.
Together with the Ministry of Finance we will develop in the course of this year proposals.
- Russia, as you know, is struggling with declining production in current fields. If the investment
will be reduced, won't this mean that in 2017 the volume of oil production will fail?
- Much will depend on the situation with oil prices and the ruble exchange rate. All our major
companies confirm that they will be able to maintain production at the current fields at the current
level. However, at the current oil prices, investment in new projects will be reduced - at least
by 20-30%.
- In the medium to long term additional load on unconventional and expensive projects will
fall and Western sanctions. How noticeable the effect of them now?
- Impact on overall production is extremely small. In the last two years we have extracted from
these "difficult" fields were we do need western technology just 18 million tons, or around
3% of our total production. The growth of their share is a matter of the future.
- However, without the Western technologies to achieve it will be difficult.
- I expect the opposite effect. Since our companies cannot cooperate with the West in this
area, they had to do this work independently and to develop new technologies in Russia.
- Let me get this straight: in the next few years Russia can't eliminate technological handicap
with the West. This will not work.
At least, we achieve our goals. In three years we seriously upgraded the level of our current
technology. Professionals, scientific and practical basis of all that we have. Many companies are
working on it.
- As for the gas sector, the European Commission seeks to obtain access to all of the gas contracts.
What is that in your shows?
- It's hard for me to comment on it. We believe that commercial contracts are a matter between
the two companies.
- Are you concerned about the behaviour of the EU?
- European authorities want the contract on deliveries was coordinated by the European Commission.
However, many countries disagree. Much will depend on them.
- Differences between the EU and Gazprom have a long tradition. For a long time Gazprom attitude
to the EU's was aggressive and disrespectful. Now his tone was softer. How do you evaluate the bilateral
relations at the moment?
- We believe that Russia is a reliable supplier and that the relationship is beneficial to both
parties. Thus the entire current infrastructure was created. Now, however, we have to expand
it taking into account the fact that production in Europe will decrease and demand will increase.
But differences remain. Can we call the position of Europe a constructive policy ?
- Political aspects now take precedence over the economic aspect of natural gas and oil supplies.
So, for political reasons the project "South stream" was blocked . For political reasons, there
are attempts to prevent the expansion of Nord stream. It is obvious that the construction of the
first two lines of the "Nord stream" conformed to European legal norms. However, the attitude
to the two new branches is different. In addition, we see that in the new energy strategy of the
EU does n mention relations with Russia. How can this be considering the fact that we are the main
supplier of energy to EU? We hope, however, that pragmatism will prevail. We need to develop relations
based on mutual interests, guarantees and long-term prospects.
- I can assume that you are counting on the support of Germany to expand the "Nord stream".
- We presume that we are talking, primarily, about economic project. Major energy companies of
Europe are interested in him. Because this is a long term project. And we will compete with other
suppliers of natural and liquefied gas, which is the rate now.
It has been an historic week for the US energy market, as hot on the heels of US oil exports is the
first US LNG export cargo – leaving
from the Sabine Pass terminal. Yet while this is viewed as a game-changer for the US – as it
can now truly live up to its moniker as 'the Saudi Arabia of natural gas' – exports could
be just as big a game-changer for parts of Europe.
By reducing its reliance upon Russia, Europe
will not only see benefits from a pricing perspective, but it will also help limit the political
power that Russia holds over many countries. The chart below starkly illustrates Russia's dominance
in Europe, with a number of countries leaning on it for the majority of its gas needs.
In total, Russia supplies a third of Europe's natural gas. Nonetheless, some estimates suggest
that the US could
catch up with Russia within a decade in terms of exports into Europe. Estimates also suggest
that US exports could drop European LNG prices by 25% over the next two years. This benefit would
be widespread across the continent; Germany relies on Russia for half of its gas needs, Italy for
a third, while countries such as Bulgaria lean on Russia for the vast majority of its supplies.
Since the Gazprom long-favored pipeline project South Stream by the end of 2014 due to the European
resistance was abandoned, Russia tirelessly seeks for new Pipelinevarianten to secure its dominant
position in the lucrative European market. It also tries to hedge supplied. But suppied to Chinese
market are not so quick to occur.
From the point of view of the Russians, time is short, because the Kremlin and Gazprom have decided,
the problematic gas transit through Ukraine to Europe from 2019 to shut down, and on other routes
to redirect. The fundamental plan does not change, even if Russia's energy Minister last week in
an Interview with the "world" did not exclude "that part of the deliveries to continue over the Ukraine
is running".
As a substitute for South Stream was Russia has been an Alternative at the ready: the "Turkish
Stream" Pipeline should Gas through the Black sea and via Turkey to the EU border. But it has not
been more than a flash in the pan, because the project since the Russian-Turkish upheavals of the
past few months has been put on hold.
New Pipeline plans to increase the pressure on Brussels
The revival of the Poseidon Pipeline is therefore to become more important. Also as a Signal to
the Mediterranean countries. The namely were recently very angry about the Gazprom group, the majority
of its energy in the intended Expansion of the Nord Stream Baltic sea pipeline (Nord Stream 2) to
Germany to invest in it.
Nord Stream 2 should the Plan to the existing capacity of 110 billion cubic meters of double,
which the majority of Europe in particular Russian gas in Germany would arrive. For comparison: ITGI
Poseidon has the original concept after only eight billion cubic meters of capacity, equal to one
tenth of the German annual consumption. In total, Gazprom delivered in the previous year 158,56 billion
cubic meters of Gas to Europe and, thus, eight percent more than in the weak Exportjahr 2014.
For Nord Stream 2 has Gazprom, with Shell, BASF, E. on, very interesting to count and OMV five
leading European gas companies for a consortium and won the support of individual EU member States.
The EU Commission is, however, resists this project, because it is a violation of the EU energy Package,
and sees the dependence on Russian Gas supplies anyway would rather like to reduce. With the Poseidon
project would have Gazprom at least a small lever to the participants of Nord Stream 2 to get your
pressure in Brussels to increase.
"... Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict. ..."
"... If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible! ..."
"... I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it . ..."
"... In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's time of death which may be coming sooner than we think! ..."
"... The invisible hand of the market applied to mayhem - US style? ..."
"... The US Doesn't have a Foreign Relations policy, it's Israel's foreign relations policy installed on US soil. ..."
"... But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT. ..."
"... Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck. Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons." ..."
"... The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply ..."
"... "Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000." ..."
Officials with Syrian rebel battalions that receive covert backing from one arm of the U.S.
government told BuzzFeed News that they recently began fighting rival rebels supported by another
arm of the U.S. government.
The infighting between American proxies is the latest setback for the Obama administration's
Syria policy and lays bare its contradictions as violence in the country gets worse.
The confusion is playing out on the battlefield - with the U.S. effectively engaged in a proxy
war with itself.
***
Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert
program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict.
The Kurdish militants, on the other hand, receive weapons and support from the Pentagon
as part of U.S. efforts to fight ISIS. Known as the People's Protection Units, or YPG,
they are
the centerpiece of the Obama administration's strategy against the extremists in Syria and
coordinate regularly with U.S. airstrikes.
The Daily Beast also
reports that U.S. allies are fighting CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. is supporting the Kurds, who
are the best on-the-ground fighters against ISIS … yet America's close ally Turkey is
trying to wipe out the Kurds . Moreover, the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia are
all
using the Incerlik air base in
Adana, Turkey , on
the border with Syria to launch military operations in Syria. The U.S. is using Incerlik to SUPPORT
the Kurds, but Turkey is using the
EXACT SAME air base to
BOMB the Kurds . In addition, the U.S. is supporting
Shia
Muslims in Iraq … but supporting their arch-enemy –
Sunnis Muslims – in neighboring Syria.
And the U.S. claims to be fighting the war on terror AGAINST the exact same groups – ISIS and
Al Qaeda – that
our
closest allies are SUPPORTING . Absolutely insane …
If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign
of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible!
I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not
following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they
already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it .... is all simply
a way of attempting to draw Russia in closer to get intel on them while they continue to work
miracles on our "proxies" which is depleting our stable of Mercs R' Us day by day.
The event that took place this past weekend in Homs and Damascus is indicative of just that.
And if Russia did indeed make the mistake of giving too much information out to Uncle Sam, the
U.S. military and Langley won't be enjoying that luxury again!...
I'm pretty certain that "Winter Soldier" Kerry's desire to carve up Syria should the cease
fire aka Plan B not come to fruition... It was always the Only Option on the table for Langley
and the Pentagon!!
In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's
time of death which may be coming sooner than we think!
The 'insouciant' Goyim remain mesmerized under the spell of entertainment and Political-Correctness
gone mad. Hence, unable are they to mount any sort of opposition to this 'soft takeover' of their
nation.
But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is
the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate
Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT.
Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced
US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck.
Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons."
If the video, believed to have been filmed near the Syrian town of Shaddadi, is authenticated
it would show that Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) forces have been given an upgrade
in technology. The footage shows a truck allegedly belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)
on the receiving end of a direct hit from the missile.
The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United
States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot
more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using,
as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply
"Assuming he's not firing from the side of a mountain or on top of a compound, it's definitely
a Javelin," Corporal Thomas Gray, a former Marine Javelin gunner who watched the video told the
Washington Post.
However John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said that he was unable to confirm whether
the image was authentic and that "nothing has changed about our policy of not providing the YPG
with weapons."
"Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command
launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000."
"... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
"... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
"... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
"... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
"... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
"... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
"... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also,
there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster.
Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their
American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used
as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.
The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement?
No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention
the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?
But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:
2. Radar IMINT
The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system
of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the
radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites:
FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should
be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can
be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that
they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.
Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe
satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios
system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite
versions).
All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014,
so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the
area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2
made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few
examples.
Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and
the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German
and French satellite systems.
The article has more interesting information about these satellites.
'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries.
If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance
is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of
nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.
"... And as I commented on another post, a couple of years ago Citi Research put the gross decline rate from existing US gas production at about 24%/year. This would be the rate of decline in the absence of new wells. Note that Louisiana showed a 20%/year net rate of decline in total marketed gas production from 2012 to 2014 (this was the net rate of decline after new wells were put on line). So, the Louisiana case history would seem to confirm the CIti estimate. ..."
"... The estimated volumetric loss of US gas production from existing wells, about 17 BCF/day per year, matches or exceeds the 2014 annual dry gas production of every country in the world, except for the US Russia (2014 BP data). ..."
Oilpro.com had an article about the EU importing LNG from the US and Australia, in order to reduce
their reliance on Russian gas. My response:
Based on production and consumption data through 2014 (BP), and ignoring changes in storage
volumes, in 2014 Russia had net natural gas exports of 16 BCF/day, Australia had net natural gas
exports of 2.5 BCF/day and the US had net natural gas imports of 3 BCF/day. So, as of 2014 anyway,
combined net natural gas exports from the US + Australia would be approximately zero.
And as I commented on another post, a couple of years ago Citi Research put the gross decline
rate from existing US gas production at about 24%/year. This would be the rate of decline in the
absence of new wells. Note that Louisiana showed a 20%/year net rate of decline in total marketed
gas production from 2012 to 2014 (this was the net rate of decline after new wells were put on
line). So, the Louisiana case history would seem to confirm the CIti estimate.
The estimated volumetric loss of US gas production from existing wells, about 17 BCF/day
per year, matches or exceeds the 2014 annual dry gas production of every country in the world,
except for the US & Russia (2014 BP data).
So, while the Marcellus/Utica Play has some very impressive wells, in round numbers it seems
likely that we need the productive equivalent of a new Marcellus Play every year, or the productive
equivalent of all of Qatar's gas production every year, just to offset the declines from existing
US wells–as the overall US rig count has declined about 70% from the rig counts we have seen in
recent years.
"... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
"... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
"... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
"... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
"... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers
benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to
put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but
a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as
long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education.
Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates
to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.
Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference
between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in
the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college
was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions
or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap.
Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about
race. Talk about entitlement.
The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US
government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions
of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition
party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to
oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has
not ended.
Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling
since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago.
For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent
of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide
no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts
toward more radical candidates.
You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and
real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising
income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity.
Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages
they have stuck to for the last generation?
Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle
America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind
the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?
For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide
a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent
education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question
that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would
start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what
every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America
peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this
are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.
And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the
promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last
century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.
So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for
a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white
privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.
Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed
to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.
Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support
is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider
picture is this:
The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking
for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white
supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.
Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served
two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived
and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line
got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because
their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate
the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone
What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to
being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it
alongside him.
Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write
first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone
widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you?
Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.
The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional,
creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than
is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place
in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form
of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic
elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so
funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy
they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from
Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed
young black woman, who do you think security will follow?
There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference
being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were
picked more often, everything else being equal.
It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing
poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the
economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they
are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have
had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.
This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line
on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only
white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists.
No no lady bone head.
First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using
the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention
on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists,
it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that
the majority of us Americans know and see each day.
By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most
of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working
class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists
liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.
Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now
just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its
body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.
Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services
and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
"... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
"... And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
"... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
"... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
"... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
"... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
"... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
"... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
"... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
"... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
"... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
"... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
"... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
"... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
"... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
"... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
"... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
"... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
"... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
"... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
"... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
"... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
"... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
"... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
"... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
"... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
"... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
In the
Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution
on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution.
At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set
forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake
in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's
role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special
Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of
Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's
insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage.
Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10
million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad,
or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic
and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading
Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable
foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel.
Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naďve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact,
for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat"
Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and
balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naďve, and
deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken
view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing
Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between
Israel and Syria
to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton
pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front
of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain
a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime
change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment
conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed
insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government
made public
its position: "Assad must go."
Since then and until the
recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless
Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change
first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk
by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany
a ceasefire. As the
Nation editors
put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously
begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia
came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves
radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building
on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on
the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals
involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led
regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly
noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter
and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international
law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup
d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably,
a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to
be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems,
much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that
now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such
as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery
caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton
acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a
bit of this story last month in
describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations
in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped.
Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver
North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert
operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument
of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not
limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War
in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated
insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going
along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from
political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not
restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures
to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in
the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down
the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by
supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden
from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster
in Syria.
The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations
with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary
of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to
serve in any government capacity - EVER.
Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment
politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the
top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
Max South
Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict
what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are
Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.
Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic
and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.
Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things
done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/).
But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I
trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and
even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for
the average person more than anyone else.
Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that
ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that
whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind
the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over
and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
Bijan Sharifi
as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess
and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure.
How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I
al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want
her to be president? Hello?
More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her
disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that
Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
Gary Pack
Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain,
and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to
bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.
Where & Why was Obama
& Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans
have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs
& stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed.
power & indifference of those before him.
James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to
get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.
The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election
and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution,
vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better
life.
Harvey Riggs
That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world
peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US
master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.
More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and
millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those
countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.
what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters
believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to
differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...
Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much
for women by their gender alone saving the world.
Sheila Rajan
Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America,
this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise
either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your
borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of
the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine
with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary
Clinton's at The State Department.
Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:
Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts
of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations
as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries,
war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed
rubric of "national defense".
Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the
world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them
for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures
of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!
Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they
care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.
Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt
Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as
we had up here!
The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions
are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money
flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.
If you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.
The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and
an oil exporter?
I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price)
to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow
it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your
buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.
The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of
paper printed by your enemy?
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price)
to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow
it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.
If your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel
of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined
by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with
his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at
the moment.
The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.
Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers,
many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest
possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price
possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.
To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much
higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can
get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.
They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.
But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.
Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be
willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their
marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering
a low price.
All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.
Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.
You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you
are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert
that advantage and kill the enemy.
By your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.
Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.
Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the
barriers to entry are low.
OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level
of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it
is simply a strategy for losing money.
Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be
willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their
market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering
a low price.
Oh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.
I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'.
I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom
production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors.
It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much
oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying
'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into
the gutter.
Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one
percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.
IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue
without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed
on to when the package was agreed.
Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than
43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.
Economic hopes are rising in Armenia that the country can serve as a trade conduit for Iran now
that international sanctions against Tehran are being lifted.
Armenia has
long-standing
ties to Iran, and is a member
of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a factor that potentially increases its attractiveness
as a trade partner for Tehran. Yerevan is "an important avenue for both Iran to export through Armenia
into that large combined market [EEU], and as a platform for Western engagement in the now opening
Iranian market," noted Richard Giragosian, director of the non-governmental Regional Studies Center
in the Armenian capital, Yerevan.
The World Bank's country director for Armenia, Laura Bailey, told RFE/RL's Armenian service in
January that stalled energy partnerships
between Iran and Armenia could be the first sector to take off.
Indeed, National Iranian Gas Exports Company Managing Director Alireza Kameli announced on February
7 that Iran is considering increasing five-fold the 1 million cubic meters of gas it sends daily
to Armenia, state-run Iranian media reported. At the same time, plans for a new power line to increase
Armenia's electricity exports to Iran are developing.
The gas deal appears to fit into a larger, regional scheme. In December, quadripartite talks took
place during which Armenia, Iran, and the Black Sea countries of Georgia and Russia agreed to establish
a coordinating group on establishing an energy corridor linking the four countries.
"We should spare no efforts to connect the Persian Gulf with the Black Sea [via Georgia, Armenia's
northern neighbor]," Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told his Armenian counterpart, Serzh Sargsyan
in a January 24 phone conversation, Iran's MehrNews agency reported.
Negotiations already have occurred between Iran and the Georgian government about sending Iranian
gas to Georgia via Armenia, Iranian state media reported Kameli, the Iranian gas official, as saying
in early January.
Some Armenian experts are tempering their optimism with caution. Russian-owned companies control
an estimated 80 percent of Armenia's energy sector. Energy giant Gazprom runs the gas pipelines from
Iran and on to Georgia, and it tends to look askance at competitors who might try to muscle in on
their markets. At the same time, no clear sign has emerged that Moscow opposes an increase in Iranian
gas exports to Armenia. The Sputnik news agency, a Kremlin mouthpiece, promptly reported Kameli's
announcement on February 7.
Iranian affairs specialist Armen Vardanian at Yerevan's Armenian Institute of International and
Security Affairs believes that "Russia will embrace the projects that will not contradict its national
interests."
"... Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify. ..."
"... Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. ..."
"... Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it. ..."
he Obama administration has just recklessly escalated its military confrontation with Russia.
The Pentagon's announcement that it will more than quadruple military spending on the US-NATO forces
in countries on or near Russia's borders pushes the new Cold War toward actual war-possibly even
a nuclear one.
The move is unprecedented in modern times. With the exception of Nazi Germany's invasion of the
Soviet Union, Western military power has never been positioned so close to Russia. The Obama administration's
decision is Russian roulette Washington-style, making the new Cold War even more dangerous than the
preceding one. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons,
including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear
weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several
years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify.
The decision will also have other woeful consequences. It will undermine ongoing negotiations
between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the Ukrainian
and Syrian crises, and it will further divide Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington's
increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.
Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US
media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during
their debates. Never before in modern times has such a dire international situation been so
ignored in an American presidential campaign. The reason may be that everything related to the new
Cold War in US-Russian relations since the Ukrainian crisis erupted in November 2013 has been attributed
solely to the "aggression" of Russian President Vladimir Putin or to "Putin's Russia"-a highly questionable
assertion, but long the media's standard policy narrative.
Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors
and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our
nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments
to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write
it.
"... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
"... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
"... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
"... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
"... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
"... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
"... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
"... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
"... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
"... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
"... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
"... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
"... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
"... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
"... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
"... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
"... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
"... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
"... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
"... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only
short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....
A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once
and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.
Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS'
"Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had
been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor
of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".
The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of
ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the
old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.
Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going
to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of
that with Clinton.
Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points
strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger?
Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she
release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might
like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running,
for people to know what she said.
... ... ...
1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid
sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when
it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious
photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.
2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside
the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware
of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider,
again.
3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me
too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not.
Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party
4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on
her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get
advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?
5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform -
was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred
for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.
6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a
"majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you
said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.
of one of the most accomplished women in the world
I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things
I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women
in the world"?
She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions
and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted,
then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal)
U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she
then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens)
in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment
ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished"
herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for
the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete
destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...
Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination
is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably
not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are
delusional?
Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat
the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's
help!
1. Killary plays the sex card.
2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men
and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported
Bernie's no vote.
4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow
a good thing.
5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the
upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories
of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy
Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)
Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's
election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have
learned their lesson.
As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women
and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man"
who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural
link to who doesn't!
Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in
recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear
in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from
the West Bank .
Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under
siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion
in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an
Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power
to crack down on the BDS movement!)
At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they
deserved.
You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete
diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's
tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!
*For more background see
thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.
Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible
for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the
fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of
crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a
bad light...)
Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign
Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and
then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported
unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower
and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.
What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to
be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does
make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.
Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When
she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests
of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.
At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving
furiously up and down in the background.
What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that
matter?)
And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's
Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal -
all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)
The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based
on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters
are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not
improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.
Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand,
these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record
on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted
the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she
pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack
of judgment and/or honesty on her part.
I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.
This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that
Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.
Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever
she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the
status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas
that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.
Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's
campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising
(copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot.
What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field
and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's
see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.
The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions
that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and
will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.
NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at
a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising
capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.
"Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's
workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech
firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly
for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.
"'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from
what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a
Goldman Sachs managing director.' "
It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you
listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving
and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political
climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive
way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own
nation.
So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing
Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things
that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she
said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back
AS A MESSAGE.
This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise
that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people.
That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back
to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with
witty and quick comebacks.
People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to
whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer
out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even
bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people
are actually thinking.
"Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"
It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is
an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University
that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.
In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton
according to the latest poll.
The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news
seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced
picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see
- a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular
to be one.
In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and
his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating
fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.
Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend
it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).
She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street
money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
"Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you
do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "
Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:
Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.
Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East
adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the
U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of
the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.
Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is
a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought
and paid for tactician.
the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever.
she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class,
and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against
the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.
And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning
with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the
state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained
thanks to its political influence.
So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you
rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders
or to Hillary Clinton.
The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets...
And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our
ally?
I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to
the comments.
The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed
progressive news source...
Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about
his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli
lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?
I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in
the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly
how they deserved.
Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We
aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates,
follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate
media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.
The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the
spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity
in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual
Buzzfeed. Best of luck.
she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's
just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
--The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
--There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the
U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
--Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
--US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over
11 years on average in 33 other countries.
In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:
This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare
me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief,"
it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.
When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made
of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South
Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history.
Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the
2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with
Obama.
At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting
on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile
in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to
fake.
Please try to understand these things, context is everything.
Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the
Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."
But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc.
who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget
that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.
As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really
has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money
and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president
backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that
politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented
by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose
their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than
what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty
that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.
For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people,
the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid
and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the
US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that
smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational
waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need
someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone
who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You
do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders
quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless
they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements
are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due
to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand
that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create
asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds
on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?
Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets
and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.
Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has
two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.
Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.
"... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for
the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due
to American sanctions was justified. ..."
"... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
"... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she
was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served
as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
"... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed
all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's
contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords,
which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
"... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright
rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
"... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija
Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in
1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
"... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting
match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."
..."
Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy
has no glass ceiling.
Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a
special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.
By repurposing her own
original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission
standards because she's probably going there.
Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all,
she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright
has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army,
escaped to Serbia, and
she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.
Too bad she is a neocon monster.
Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the
Nazi death camps,
Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down
wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan
politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright
stated that the deaths
of 500,000
Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.
When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?
Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop
genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:
"Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders
of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks
after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and
Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces
and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined
genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce
the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)
"The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full
potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than
otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time,
it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered
in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador
Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On
May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19]
But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers
and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail,
the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering
armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms
for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF
victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16
Unlike Rwanda, Albright was
involved in every step of
Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that,
she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the
Center for National
Policy. She is a former student of
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the
ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's
War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is
irrefutable at this point in history
that the U.S.
pretext for military intervention was fabricated.
War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador
torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic
to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was
blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, he
was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.
Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in
the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!
The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states' national budgets.
***
"I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have
to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level."
***
"Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty
long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill
of the financial markets."
Threw money at
"several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires", including billionaire businessman H.
Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John
Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley
CEO John Mack
Artificially
"front-loaded an enormous [stock] market rally". Professor G. William Domhoff
demonstrated that the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the top 1% own 35%).
The great majority of Americans – the bottom 90% – own less than
20% of all stocks and mutual funds. So the Fed's effort overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest
Americans … and wealthy foreign investors
Acted as cheerleader in chief for unregulated use of derivatives at least as far back as 1999
(see this and
this), and is now
backstopping derivatives loss
Allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and
financial experts
say
that the economy will not recover until the giant banks are broken up. For example, Citigroup's
former chief executive says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the merger of banking
and insurance giants, Greenspan
told him, "I have
nothing against size. It doesn't bother me at all"
Preached that a new bubble be blown every time the last one bursts
Had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with the U.S.
House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight
of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas
at Austin. See
this and
this
Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in
Lehman's accounting fraud, (and see
this), and
pushed to pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as
Robert Reich
notes, Geithner was "very much in the center of the action" regarding the secret bail out of
Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black
points out: "Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October
2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent
the crisis, but instead covered up its depth"
They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy.
For example:
Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the
Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who "said that what he called a 'natural' competitive
banking system without a 'central' bank would be better…. 'nothing can be more surely established
by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade.
The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care
of itself.'"
Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well. For example, Austrian economist
Murray Rothbard wrote:
The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by
the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.
Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank,
the Bank of England. Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764,
this is what he observed:
When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British
working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money
to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:
"We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in
them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed
that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced
to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals
had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars,
just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient
funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that
it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which
has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." This, he said,
was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on
tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which
created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
And things are getting worse ... rather than better. As Professor Werner tells
Washington's Blog:
Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe,
yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm
in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring banking crises', central banks are usually
handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background
here and
here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit
from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied
not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.
Georgetown University historian Professor
Carroll Quigley argued that
the aim of the powers-that-be is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control
in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world
as a whole." This system is to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the
world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."
Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy
fact.
Clinton campaigned in 2008 on the notion of inevitability. When that inevitability showed cracks,
she failed. She has campaigned in 2016 on the notion of inevitability. Same result.
In 2016 as in 2008 she has no alternative game plan other than to react with childish insults,
as if the thought of having a real challenger was never considered. Must be that famous legend
in her own mind at work. Another example of poor judgment.
Inevitability is a nice way to put entitlement. "I'm with Hillary" says the campaign is about
Hillary's personal success. She could have run a unity campaign about electing more Democrats
and just ignored a challenger.
"... the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil ( gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say. ..."
"... This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be. ..."
"... The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market. ..."
"... As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar. ..."
"... Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even. ..."
Could this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.
When camels are thirsty
they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own
blood relieve their thirst.
Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth
ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.
This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront
of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those
for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one.
Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe
get to have the first and final say.
The problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large
quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed
with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil
prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than
they would otherwise be.
The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also
known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending
on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.
In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2011/12: "Give up Assad, or we'll fill our media with BS stories
about you. We will also 'encourage' our corporations to not invest in your country"
Russia to NATO-GCC: "You have been doing that for ages, who cares for even more propaganda.
Assad stays"
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2013/14: "Give up Assad, or we will turn Ukraine against you, there
will be serious trouble for you, as now we will make our economic warfare against you, official.
Moreover, our 'regime-change' efforts will intensify"
Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "Bring it on, Assad stays"
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2014: "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion*, we promise that
you will feel the strain, just give up on Assad or we will destroy you"
Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "I have seen worse. Assad stays"
*Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:
a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.
b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of
recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)
North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of
the following reasons:
a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing
market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to
have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits.
Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.
b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation,
but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic
growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b)
Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.
As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world
have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North
America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC,
nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.
Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil
producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert
most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they
must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they
can more or less break-even.
But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.
Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are
true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.
The available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio.
The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.
I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple
theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is
not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to
cut production unilaterally.
The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also
known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire)
also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves,
depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or
perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long
sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil
production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they
controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the
controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?
I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what
they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They
would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to
tell them what to do.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains
of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).
Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:
The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…
The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those
gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?
"US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite
(Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for
getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.
The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.
Do FT honchos know that the USA is importer of natural gas and will stay as such in foreseeable
future due to decimation of shale oil/gas sector. See
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_impc_s1_a.htm
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, like Saudi Arabia in oil, Gazprom is one of the lowest-cost gas producers. According to calculations by Mr Henderson at OIES, the cost to Gazprom of delivering its gas to Germany is $3.5 per mmbtu (million British thermal unit) - compared with an estimated $4.3 per mmbtu break-even for US LNG supplies despite US gas prices trading near 16-year lows. ..."
"... Gazprom's contract prices, which are largely tied to oil prices, have kept pace with the spot gas market decline and are likely to fall further in the next six to nine months. ..."
Just as Saudi Arabia is the main swing producer for the global oil market thanks to its ability
to ramp up production if needed, Gazprom is the main holder of spare capacity in the global gas market.
According to Gazprom executives, the company has about 100bn cu m of spare production capacity
- thanks largely to investments made on over-optimistic assumptions about future gas demand - equivalent
to almost a quarter of its production and about 3 per cent of world output.
And just as Saudi Arabia has been unnerved by the prospect of US shale oil
producers eroding its market share, Gazprom faces a similar prospect in the gas market. The flood
of cheap gas unleashed by the
US shale boom has prompted a wave of US LNG projects in recent years. The first cargo of LNG
from the "lower 48" contiguous states of the US is due to be shipped in the next two months, and
the total export capacity under
construction is equivalent to two-thirds of Gazprom's exports to Europe.
Finally, like Saudi Arabia in oil, Gazprom is one of the lowest-cost gas producers. According
to calculations by Mr Henderson at OIES, the cost to Gazprom of delivering its gas to Germany is
$3.5 per mmbtu (million British thermal unit) - compared with an estimated $4.3 per mmbtu break-even
for US LNG supplies despite US gas prices trading near 16-year lows.
Put all those facts together, and it would seem to make sense for the Russian company to push
down prices to keep US LNG out of the market.
"Now the market is getting excited about it; but also the Russians have done their maths and they
know they can win if it happens," says Thierry Bros, European gas analyst at Société Générale in
Paris.
Such a move would be cheaper to implement now because European gas prices have already fallen
dramatically - spot UK gas prices are down 50 per cent in the past two years. Gazprom's contract
prices, which are largely tied to oil prices, have kept pace with the spot gas market decline and
are likely to fall further in the next six to nine months.
Mr Bros estimates it would cost Gazprom $1.3bn in lost revenues to price US LNG out of the market
this year - less than 1 per cent of its historical annual sales.
Gazprom executives have studied the economics of the price war approach and are discussing the
issue, according to people familiar with the company's thinking.
At a
meeting with investors in New York this week, Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom's deputy chief executive,
argued that low spot prices in Europe had already made US LNG supplies uneconomical. "Despite the
prevailing view on the market that North American LNG can change the current pricing model in Europe,
in reality this is not the case at all," he said.
"... A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strausss ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case. ..."
"... So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are above religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like mans mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is far more important politically than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies. (AR, p. 148). ..."
"... But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the smaller lies like weapons of mass destruction, the smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud. And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their superior rhetorical skills to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called rhetoric, we call spin. ..."
"... All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of ones own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes noble. This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a noble lie a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strausss hands the noble lie becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strausss noble lies are far from noble. They are intended to dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite (AR, p. 79). ..."
All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others.
And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to
lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on
principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will
become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success
and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher"
Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so
that they are sometimes called "Leocons."
Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a Jewish-German émigré from the Nazi regime who eventually landed
at the University of Chicago where he developed a following that has achieved enormous prominence
in American politics. Among his students were Paul Wolfowitz who has openly acknowledged that he
is a follower of Straus as has the godfather of neconservatism, Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol begat
William Kristol, the director of operation for the DC neocons, editor of the Weekly Standard and
"chairman" of the Project for the New American Century, which laid out the plans for the Iraq War.
(PNAC also opined in 2000 that a Pearl Harbor-like event would be necessary to take the country to
war, and one year later, presto, we had the strange and still mysterious attack of September 11.)
For his part Paul Wolfowitz begat Libby, in the intellectual sense, when he taught Libby at Yale.
Others stars in the necon firmament are Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and lesser figures like Abram
Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, created by Donald Rumsfeld. Shulsky,
also a student of Strauss, was responsible for fabricating the lies masquerading as intelligence
that were designed to get the U.S. into the war on Iraq. While the neocons have a passion for the
Likud party and Zionism, they also count among their number not a few pre-Vatican II Catholics and
an assortment of cranks like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton and crypto fascists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
The list goes on and Justin Raimondo has documented it in great detail over the years on Antiwar.com.
But it is enough to note that Cheney's alter ego was Libby, and Rumsfeld's second in command until
recently was Wolfowitz. So both Cheney, the de facto president with an apparently ill perfused cerebrum,
and the geezer commanding the Pentagon have been managed by younger and very prominent Straussians
for the past five years.
A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The
Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR),
both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strauss's
ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps
both. As she says in PI (p.xii), "Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has
inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip
of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a
liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case."
For those who wish to understand the neocon agenda, Drury's books are essential reading. She is
clear and thorough.
Of pertinence to "Scooter's" case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss's idea that
a "philosopher elite" (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone
remarked before last Friday, "Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?" a man who shunned the spotlight
and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the "vulgar" herd,
as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate "higher truths" such as the inevitability
and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state.
So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not
weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note
that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are "above" religion, capable of dealing
with tough truths like man's mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing
in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is "far more important politically"
than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary "to breathe new life
into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies." (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do except
perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel.
Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can
keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested
in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign
affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists. It's a win win situation,
from their point of view
But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser
lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the "smaller" lies like "weapons of mass destruction," the
"smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud." And here too the elite has a role to
play. They are to use their "superior rhetorical skills" to make the weak argument seem stronger.
In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling
them. What Strauss called "rhetoric," we call spin.
All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth
function of society and triumph of one's own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes "noble."
This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a "noble lie" a myth or parable
that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strauss's hands the "noble lie"
becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strauss's "noble lies are far from "noble." They are intended
to "dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite" (AR, p. 79).
One other idea of Strauss's bears on the situation of "Scooter" Libby. How is the Straussian philosophical
elite going to get from the halls of academe to the corridors of power? This depends on good luck
and the "chance" encounter between the powerful and the Straussian. Here the contemporary neocons
go beyond Strauss and leave nothing to chance. It would even appear that they look for the stupid,
gullible or those who are mentally compromised. So William Kristol becomes Vice President Quayle's
chief of Staff, and Libby becomes the right hand man to the addled Cheney as well as assistant to
the Quayle-like Bush. And there are many more.
Finally, Drury makes the point the Strauss and the neocons are not really conservative at all.
They are radicals, at war with the entire modern enterprise which makes them turn to the ancients
for their inspiration and even there they need to distort the teachings of Socrates or Plato to make
their case. But the Enlightenment comes to us with the advance of science to which Strauss is also
hostile. He says that he is not against science as such "but popularized science or the diffusion
of scientific knowledge.Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret
from the common man" (PI, p. 154). But this is impossible. Science by its very nature is a vast social
enterprise requiring the widest possible dissemination of its findings. Any society that puts a lid
on this will fail, and so by natural selection, the Straussian project is doomed to fail.
But before that happens the Straussians can do a lot of damage. As Drury says, they "cannot be
trusted with political power." But we can learn from them the importance of boldness, not in the
pursuit of the "noble lie" but of the truth. And we must be certain that we are vigorous as we hunt
them down and get them out of power. In that effort Shadia Drury has done us a great service.
"... The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. ..."
"... First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons ..."
"... On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. ..."
"... In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection." ..."
"... Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest. ..."
"... Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." ..."
"... Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject. ..."
"... No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with? ..."
"... A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was. ..."
The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Broadly conceived by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney immediately after 9/11, it initially lacked
a coherent justification . But as Condoleezza Rice noted at the time, the tragedy brought "opportunities."
(People in fear can be persuaded to support things policy-makers long wanted, but couldn't quite
sell to the public.)
First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then
they sat down and carefully invented the reasons for their war.
On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him
in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce
a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've
explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this.
We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection."
But Clarke's recollection of the event continues:
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very
intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was
a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report.
We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared
the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor
or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'"
Few policy decisions in modern history can rival the evil of that demand that the U.S. intelligence
community deliberately contrive a false historical narrative, to justify a war that has destroyed
a country and killed half a million people.
Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response
to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately
after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the
totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz
were in deadly earnest.
The Powell UN speech, demanding global support for an attack on a threatening, al-Qaeda aligned
Iraq, in fact bombed. But more than that, key U.S. allies-NATO heavies France and Germany among them-refused
to get on board the program. This occasioned an amazing campaign of vilification of France, best
symbolized by Congress's decision to rename "French fries" "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria.
An asinine book trashing France as "our oldest enemy" became a best-seller.
... ... ...
Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. All on the same page when it comes to maintaining
what Wolfowitz termed "full-spectrum dominance" in the post-Cold War world. Now as it all falls apart-as
ISIL expands its "caliphate," as the Syrian Baathists hold out against both U.S.-backed and other
Islamists, as Iran gains respect as a serious negotiator in the Geneva talks, as China rises, as
Russia thwarts NATO expansion, as U.S.-Israeli ties fray, as a multi-polar world inevitably emerges-
what triumphs can the neocons claim?
Once flushed with history, proclaiming the "end of history" with the triumph of capitalist imperialism
over Marxist socialism and other competing ideologies, they have only a handful of successes they
can claim.
They have successfully avoided prison. They calculated that they could mislead the people and commit
the gravest possible crimes with impunity, under the U.S. system. Wolfowitz was nominated by Bush
to become World Bank president in 2005, and held the post two years before departing amidst a scandal. Feith sashayed out of office the same year, hired at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service
(despite opposition from the more principled faculty). They serve as news consultants and live comfortable
lives.
They have left behind in positions of power and influence fellow neocons (most notably, Victoria Nuland, architect of the Ukraine disaster) and neocon allies, "liberal internationalists" like former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as an assortment of dear friends who simply love war,
such as Sen. John McCain. Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on
Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." It must give them great pleasure.
Perhaps most importantly: Iraq, although (or because) it has been absolutely destroyed as a
modern state by U.S. fury, is no longer a threat to Israel.
Oilmen Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and Rice who has an oil tanker named after her) lusted after
oil profits. They lusted too for an expansion of U.S. military power in the "Greater Middle East."
They were less concerned with Israel. But Israel's survival as a specifically "Jewish" state, with
a subject Arab population that must never become demographically threatening-and blow the whole Zionist
project by forcing a one-state multi-ethnic solution-is the central neocon concern. They will not
say this, of course; Leo Strauss students like Wolfowitz and Shulsky believe in the need for deception
to get things done. But this was the minimal objective of the neocons' response to 9/11: to use the
event to advantage Israel.
Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of
mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons
of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared
(as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some
"intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know
of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals
to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject.
The real issue, they now averred, was creating "democracy" in the Middle East. Condi Rice happily
connived with this strategy, arguing dramatically that it was as wrong to deny people in the Middle
East their freedom as it had been to deny black people in her home of Birmingham, Alabama their right
to vote. Suddenly special diplomats were dispatched to Arab countries to lecture skeptical, sometimes
glowering audiences on the advantages of the U.S. political system.
Under great pressure, some Arab countries somewhat expanded their parliamentary processes. The
effort backfired as Islamists were elected in Egypt, Hizbollah made advances in Lebanon, and Hamas
won a majority in the first free Palestinian election (in 2006). The "terrorists" were winning elections!
The State Department denounced such results and has since shut up about "democracy" in the Middle
East.
No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor
was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China
and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them.
What does that leave us with?
A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce
a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than
Saddam ever was.
But Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't see it that way. He has repeatedly dubbed Iran as a greater threat
than ISIL. Having predicted since 1992 that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb; having repeatedly
demanded (echoed by prominent U.S. neocons such as Norman Podhoretz) that the U.S. bomb Iran (to
prevent a "nuclear holocaust"); having angrily dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran
has no nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu wants Obama to focus on destroying the Iranian regime.
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in
the Department of Religion.
"... In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself
but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon
view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of
barbaric global groups. ..."
"... They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss Co – that their most
important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society
is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad. ..."
"... Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into You can get much
farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as
in Washington consensus) alone. Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism. ..."
"... The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its
failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular
support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards
good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that. ..."
"... As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle,
Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement)
as a cabal (a word with an interesting etymology). ..."
"... That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results
no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the
American people themselves at the neocons misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should
be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. ..."
Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement.
Whether is has been bad or good, hard to know. A little bit and a good read about the neoconservatives
and Leo Strauss:
"Neoconservatives hold the view that 'American' is the best bet for the world – America's
institutional set-up is a very useful combination of modern elements, having to do with the
sovereignty of individuals together with the older idea of a substantial role for government
– and that this is an idea that needs to be widely promulgated. Indeed, without its promulgation
there can arise and persist major threats to the countries which do embrace this set up, such
as the United States of America. In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong,
and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its
system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal
democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups.
Now let us return to Strauss. Recall his prudential endorsement of classical liberalism
as the best bet for philosophy. (Just exactly why philosophy ought to be cherished is not made
clear by Strauss & Co; and their implicit or explicit nihilism calls the merit of philosophy
into serious question.) Strauss's embrace of classical liberalism – or at least a watered down
version of it, as per liberal democracy – did appear to influence the neocons. They too
believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss & Co – that their most important
values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society
is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad."
Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into "You can get
much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation
(as in Washington consensus) alone." Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism.
Using deception as a smoke screen in politics was actually introduced by Machiavelli, not by
Leo Strauss; that's why Bush II administration was called Mayberry Machiavelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_Machiavelli)
What Leo Strauss introduced and what is used in neoconservative/neoliberal discourse is the
concept of "noble lie" (which includes "false flag" operations;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag).
Here is how Professor of History at Tufts University Gary Leupp defines their behavior:
== quote ==
Hersh notes the critical influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss (d. 1973) on Wolfowitz's
thinking. His article stimulated, among other articles, a substantial piece on Strauss by Jeet
Heer in the Boston Globe (May 11), and another by William Pfaff in the International Herald
Tribune (May 15), the latter noting that "Strauss's thought is a matter of public interest
because his followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Strauss, of German Jewish origins
who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, mentoring Wolfowitz among others, was
a brilliant man. No question about that. But also a man profoundly hostile to the modern world
and to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right of the wise
and strong to lead societies to the fulfillment of their wise aims, using subterfuge when necessary,
because speaking the naked truth won't get the job done.
Strauss's point of departure is Socrates, who in Plato's Republic denounces Athenian democracy
(the rule of the untutored masses) and instead promotes government by "philosopher-kings."
Strauss had experienced the Weimar Republic (one of the more democratic experiments in modern
history) and seen Germany fall into the hands of the Nazis. He understandably opposed the latter,
but he derived some lessons from their methodology.
The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided
in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to
acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly
used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting
in secrecy, can do that.
As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with
smug amusement) as a "cabal" (a word with an interesting etymology).
They have contempt for the masses, and feel utterly justified in wisely misleading
those masses into a roadmap for global peace on their terms. That meant, initially, using 9-11
to produce support for the seizure of Iraq,
That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with
results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion
among the American people themselves at the neocons' misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much
though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. The latter might be provoked
by the fact that persons inclined to embrace the most extreme factions in the Israeli political
apparatus are disproportionately represented in the neocons' cabal, and while the general movement
of U.S. foreign policy is driven by broad geopolitical concerns, rather than the alliance with
Israel, the neocons' allegiance to what they perceive to be the interests of Sharon's Israel
is highly conspicuous.
== end of quote ==
"... Hopefully after reading your comment, those who believe that the US is not an empire, shall have at least a bit clearer understanding of the fact(s) that: ..."
"... Japan, although de jure a developed democracy, is de facto the 51st state of the US and it is not its democracy and economic might that keeps China from sinking it, but indeed the 50000 US Military personal permanently staged in Okinawa ..."
"... It is not the South Korean peoples will that keeps the fat, ugly Kim (and the other fatter and uglier Kim-s before him) from turning Seoul into an ashtray within an hour, but indeed the 50000 US Military personal permanently staged there…. ..."
"... US does not spend more than the next 20 countries COMBINED in war/military just for the fun of it – but indeed to secure its unchallenged hegemony throughout the world. ..."
"... US does not maintain and pay for more than 200 military bases and installations (1/3 of them on a permanent status) throughout the globe just to enjoy the climate and eat sushi…, but indeed to influence affairs in EVERY corner of the globe. ..."
"... By directly and indirectly creating, fueling and influencing every (and I mean that literally: every and all!) war and conflict throughout the world since WWII gives a full and complete meaning to: ..."
"... Not only is the US an Empire, but it is an Empire that puts to shame all preceding ones ~ Stavros H ..."
"... Russia is at a massive disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO-GCC in anything other than nuclear capability: ..."
"…Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of
the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly
by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy
and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources
would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power…" ~ 02/18/1992 Defense
Planning Guidance (aka: the Wolfowitz Doctrine). Authored by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby.
Dear Stavros,
I have to say that your comment is a "must read" for the multitude of un-initiated commentators
who naively think the US is not an empire , or for those who have the 15 century understanding
of "Empire" and think that to be an empire the US must include more than Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands in/on its map…
The best and most synthetic comment (within the time/space limits of a blog akin to this) with
regard to history and geopolitics of the US Empire.
With the exception of a few outdated and "linear" thinking passages (i.e.: "…with Russia openly
defying the entire North-American-EU-Turkey-GCC-Israel complex despite a relative balance of forces
that is on paper nothing less than catastrophic (for Russia)…" – what Mr. Fermi did in Chicago
in 1942 and Mr. Oppenheimer et al, did in New Mexico in the Summer of 1945, reduce to irrelevancy
the amount and size of the adversaries of countries like Russia and the US when it comes to war…hint:
there will be no adversaries left and nothing to conquer afterwards!), I fully agree with your
assessment and comprehension of the "puzzle".
Hopefully after reading your comment, those who believe that the US is not an empire, shall have
at least a bit clearer understanding of the fact(s) that:
Japan, although de jure a developed democracy, is de facto the 51st state of the US and
it is not its democracy and economic might that keeps China from "sinking" it, but indeed the
>50000 US Military personal permanently staged in Okinawa (and GOD knows how many more "civilian"
personal). Young Chinese minds – whose most important history lesson taught in school to this
day is : "The rape of Nankin" know that very well!
It is not the South Korean people's will that keeps the fat, ugly Kim (and the other fatter
and uglier Kim-s before him) from turning Seoul into an ashtray within an hour, but indeed
the >50000 US Military personal permanently staged there….
US does not spend more than the next 20 countries COMBINED in war/military just for the
fun of it – but indeed to secure its unchallenged hegemony throughout the world.
US does not maintain and pay for more than 200 military bases and installations (1/3 of
them on a "permanent" status) throughout the globe just to enjoy the climate and eat sushi…,
but indeed to "influence" affairs in EVERY corner of the globe.
By directly and indirectly creating, fueling and influencing every (and I mean that literally:
every and all!) war and conflict throughout the world since WWII gives a full and complete
meaning to:
"Not only is the US an Empire, but it is an Empire that puts to shame all preceding ones"
~ Stavros H
I am impressed and will read you more attentively in the future.
Regarding my comment on Russia being "catastrophically" outgunned by the NATO-GCC-Israel complex
opposing her, allow me to attempt a clarification/elaboration.
Obviously, the existence of nuclear weapons (both tactical & strategic) and Russia's very own
formidable arsenal of such weapons almost certainly forestalls any hopes/plans that her enemies
may have had in launching some kind of 21st century Operation Barbarossa/Napoleonic invasion.
Notice that I say "almost" since at least a few western "security experts" believe that a surprise
decapitating "First Strike" could potentially neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent and pave the
way for victory.
But, this being a 21st century Global Hybrid War, conventional/unconventional military assets
are not the only factor at play.
Russia is at a massive disadvantage vis-a-vis NATO-GCC in anything other than nuclear capability:
a) Conventional Air and Naval Forces. NATO's (read; US's) fleet roams the oceans. NATO's drone
fleet also handily exceeds Russia's in both quantity and quality.
b) Geostrategic reach. US-NATO boasts proxies and military bases bestriding most of the globe's
surface. NATO even has proxies on Russia's borders (a tremendous threat to Russia) That includes
the Baltic states (only minutes of flight between them and St. Petersburg) Georgia in the Caucasus,
as well most importantly and recently, Ukraine. Ukraine is now an open wound for Russia as well
as an existential threat.
c) Most importantly, NATO-GCC is immensely superior to Russia in economic terms. GDP, financial
assets, ability to issue currency, you name it. This allows NATO-GCC not only to buy more influence
around the global chessboard, but also to at least inflict short-term economic pain on Russia.
If Russia fails to cope, it will become much more than that.
d) "Soft Power". The "West" culturally dominates the world. And when I say culturally, I use
that term in its broadest sense. Not only films, music and fashion, but also in terms of language,
education, political and behavioral norms etc. Moreover, and this is quite crucial, NATO-GCC outguns
Russia in terms of propaganda outlets. Russia only boasts one state-funded TV network and a couple
websites and also has to rely on several "alternative media" websites in the West itself (which
it does not control or fund) but who are I think, its most prized asset in the "informational
war" sphere. People who feel disenfranchised in the West itself (mostly the far-left and the far-right)
have largely sided with Russia on this one. This is so for obvious reasons that I don't have to
go into right now.
On the other hand, NATO, possesses an entire global behemoth of propaganda factories, some
state funded, others partially so, others wholly private, but all of them with direct links to
western Intelligence Agencies, pushing a particular narrative in myriads of ways, at all times
adjusted to the targeted audience.
You must also add the so-called NGO's to the equation. In this arena, Russia owns little if
any assets. Her enemies on the other hand, again possess entire armies of "international agencies",
"charities", "watchdogs", "think-tanks" etc. All are designed to push the NATO agenda around the
globe, subverting any and all governments that step out of line. Their first and foremost target
is of course, you guessed it. These include: HRW, AI, SOHR, PHR and so on and so on ad infinitum.
Russia is of course scrambling to find asymmetrical ways to partially counter for this imbalance,
with some success, it has to said. It is in this vein that I made that claim.
No arguments what so ever! Fully agree, but just for the sake of discussion:
1- "Notice that I say "almost" since at least a few western "security experts" believe that
a surprise decapitating "First Strike" could potentially neutralize Russia's nuclear deterrent
and pave the way for victory." ~ Stavros
Those who say that (i.e: McCain, Graham etc) are first class morons!
Even if we had 90% success rate during that first strike would live them with 800+ high yield
heads which will assure there will be no winners.
Even if we had 99% destruction rate during the first strike (impossible even if we new where
they hide them…and I mean all 8000+ of war heads they possess.
They have more then all the others combined!) will still live them with 80+ deliverable high
yield heads – which still assures NO winners!
That is why smart people in the '60s and '70s called it MAD (mutually assured destruction).
2- "Conventional Air and Naval Forces. NATO's (read; US's) fleet roams the oceans. NATO's
drone fleet also handily exceeds Russia's in both quantity and quality."
Those are WWII technology which are successful against countries like Iran/Iraq/Vietnam/Granada/Libya/Argentina/Brasil
etc, etc.
But against Russia/China and the new generation hyper-sonic anti ship weaponry and EMP/electronic
jamming technology they are truly and utterly VERY expensive sitting ducks.
The alleged Syrian peace process now enters its Geneva charade stage. This could last
months; get ready for lavish doses of posturing and bluster capable of stunning even Donald Trump.
The notion that Geneva may be able to impersonate Damascus in a suit-and-tie pantomime
is ludicrous to begin with. Even the UN envoy, the sartorially superb
Staffan
de Mistura, admits the Sisyphean task ahead - even if all relevant players were at the table.
Then we have Syrian "opposition figure" George Sabra announcing that no delegation from the
Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee will be at the table in Geneva. As if Syrians needed
an "opposition" instrumentalized by Saudi Arabia.
So in the interest of providing context, here's an extremely concise recap of recent, crucial
facts on the Syrian ground which the "new capital" Geneva may ignore at its own peril.
Let's start with last summer, when Iranian Quds Force superstar commander Qasem Soleimani laid
down the law, in person, in Moscow, establishing without a doubt the grim situation across the
Syrian theater of war.
Essentially Soleimani told the Kremlin and Russian intelligence that Aleppo might be about
to fall; that Jabhat al-Nusra was at the doors of southern Damascus; that Idlib had fallen; and
Latakia - home to Russia's naval base at Tartus - would be next.
One can imagine the effect of this jolt of realpolitik on President Putin's mind. That clinched
his resolution to stop the fall of Syria, and prevent it from becoming a Libyan remix.
The Russian Air Force campaign turned out to be the ultimate game-changer.
It is in the process of securing the Damascus-Homs-Latakia-Hama-Aleppo network - the urban, developed
Western Syria that holds 70 percent of the country's population. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and/or Jabhat
al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, have zero chances of taking over this territory. The rest
is mostly desert.
Jaysh al-Islam - a motley crew weaponized by Saudi Arabia - still holds a few positions north
of Damascus. That's containable. The country bumpkins in Daraa province, south of Damascus, could
only make a push towards the capital in an impossible 1991 Desert Storm context.
"Moderate rebels" - that Beltway concoction - did try to hold Homs and Al-Qusayr, cutting off
the resupply of Damascus. They were repelled. As for the gaggle of "moderate rebels" who took
all of Idlib province, they are being pounded mercilessly for four months now by the Russian Air
Force. Aleppo's southern front is also being secured.
Don't bomb "our" rebels
It's easy to pinpoint who's livid with all the Russian action: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and - last
but not least - the 'Empire of Chaos', all at the table in Geneva.
Jabhat al-Nusra - remote-controlled by Ayman al-Zawahiri - is intimately linked to a gaggle
of Salafi-jihadists in the Saudi-sponsored Army of Conquest, as well as tactically allied with
myriad outfits nominally grouped in the nearly extinct Free Syrian Army (FSA).
The CIA, using the Saudis for plausible deniability, fully weaponized "vetted" FSA outfits,
which received, among other things, TOW anti-tank missiles. Guess who "intercepted" virtually
all the weapons: Jabhat al-Nusra.
The follow-up was nothing short of hilarious: Washington, Ankara and Riyadh furiously denouncing
Moscow for bombing their "moderate rebels" and not ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Slowly but surely, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), parallel to the Russian offensive, retook the
initiative. The "4+1" - Russia, Syria, Iran (Special Forces, many of them from Afghanistan), Iraq,
plus Hezbollah - started coordinating their efforts. Latakia Province - which hosts not only Tartus
but the Khmeimim Russian airbase - is now under total control by Damascus.
And that brings us to Ankara's nightmares. Russian Air Force smashed most of Ankara's Turkmen
proxies - heavily infiltrated by Turkish fascists - in northwest Syria. That was the key reason
for Sultan Erdogan's desperate move of shooting down the Su-24.
It's by now clear that the winners, as it stands, on the ground, are the "4+1", and the losers
are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So no wonder the Saudis want at least some of their proxies at the
negotiating table in Geneva, while Turkey tries to change the subject by barring the Syrian Kurds:
these are accused of being terrorists, much more than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Exit Geneva, enter Jarabulus
As if this was not messy enough, US 'Think Tankland' is now spinning there is an "understanding"
between Washington and Ankara for what will be, for all practical purposes, a Turkish invasion
of northern Syria, under the pretext of Ankara smashing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in northern Aleppo.
This is utter nonsense. Ankara's game is three-pronged; prop up their heavily battered Turkmen
proxies; keep very much alive the corridor to Aleppo - a corridor that crucially includes the
Jihadi Highway between Turkey and Syria; and most of all prevent by all means necessary that YPG
Kurds bridge the gap from Afrin to Kobani and unite all three Syrian Kurd cantons near the Turkish
border.
None of this has anything to do with fighting ISISL/ISIL/Daesh. And the nuttiest part is that
Washington is actually assisting the Syrian Kurds with air support. Either the Pentagon supports
the Syrian Kurds or Erdogan's invasion of northern Syria; schizophrenia does not apply here.
A desperate Erdogan may be foolish enough to confront the Russian Air Force during his purported
"invasion". Putin is on the record saying response to any provocation will be immediate, and lethal.
To top it off, the Russians and Americans are actually coordinating airspace action in northern
Syria.
This is bound to be the next big thing, fully eclipsing the Geneva pantomime. The YPG and its
allies are planning a major attack to finally seize the 100-kilometer stretch of the Syria-Turkey
border still controlled by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh - thus reuniting their three cantons.
Erdogan was blunt; if the YPG pushes west of the Euphrates, it's war. Well, looks like war
then. The YPG is getting ready to attack the crucial towns of Jarabulus and Manbij. Russia most
certainly will aid the YPG to reconquer Jarabulus. And that will directly pit - once again - Turkey
against Russia on the ground.
Geneva? That's for tourists; the capital of the Syrian horror show is now Jarabulus.
"... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
"... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
"Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet
moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place
but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to
the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension,
and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and
a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"
― Mike Lofgren,
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
"Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence
over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to
democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.
But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic
society are seriously threatened."
"As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a
top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither
totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.
But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the
culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of
Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are,
to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink,
the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome
is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting,
making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those
ideas as if they were radioactive.
As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is
not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at
the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It
is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it.'"
"... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Congressional Record ..."
"... Federal Register ..."
"... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
"... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
"... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
"... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
"... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
"... Who rules America? ..."
"... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
"... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
"... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
"... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
"... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
"... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
"... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
"... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
"... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency"
away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will
take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime
to emerge from the shadows.
Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding
sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars
abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?
The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes
to " another
government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a
hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns
in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders
we choose."
This "
state within
a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day,"
says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."
Rather, Lofgren continues:
It is
a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction
over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with
Wall Street.
All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National
Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress.
Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia
and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases
are conducted.
The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of
government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional
leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The
rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the
Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.
In an expose titled "
Top Secret
America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government,
made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of
top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."
These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly
setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in
the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to
congressional hearings…
The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but
it also controls
Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and
operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.
Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential
candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or
the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no
rights in the face of the shadow governments.
25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out
by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase,
and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most
of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even
for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric
utilities.
There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates"
and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.
I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will
get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though
the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation
and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.
The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals
would amount to more than a couple thousand.
The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to
shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered
his brains into a thousand pieces.
The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who
spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon
recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the
US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch
(including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives
and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to,
the Supreme Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself.
One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there
is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable
to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics:
the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable
via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates
according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon
and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the
military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the
confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country.
The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes
its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street
can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.
it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the
theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals)
to collaborate, ah hem.
"The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys
and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented
and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the
knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American
Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted.
In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors
of empire.'
"That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American
families."
"Now here is some meat:
""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to
see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization
of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long
to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea,
and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation.
The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual,
scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious
attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."
UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will
be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS,
plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.
Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt
Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power
exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the
term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by
bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the
show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.
Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor
position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening
in the USA.
The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers
are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries.
41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA.
More to come for sure.
"The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up
of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared
civilian employees of the government."
You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees
who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term
employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal
more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot
of them in any particular area.
Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there
is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.
Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view
are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent
intelligence services in the world.
"... First is the price of tar sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that cant be cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction. ..."
"... When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy. ..."
"... So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. ..."
"... The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world. ..."
"... Venezuelas problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger did in Allendes Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela. The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help. ..."
Venezuela's extra-heavy crude needs to be
blended or
refined - neither of which is cheap - before it can be sold. So Venezuela just hasn't been able
to churn out as much oil as it used to without upgraded or even maintained infrastructure. Specifically,
oil production
fell 25 percent between 1999 and 2013.
The rest is a familiar tale of fiscal woe. Even triple-digit oil prices, as
Justin Fox points out, weren't enough to keep Venezuela out of the red when it was spending more
on its people but producing less crude.
billwilson18041 , 11:57 AM EST
It would be good to think of a few positives and perspective. First is the price of tar
sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares
to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that can't be
cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction.
When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better
place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the
metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left
their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten
years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy.
So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that
both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens
with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify
their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know
it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from
burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. God forbid the right
and left sit down and cooperate for a better country or at least that will be the call of the
God and guns here
elize88 , 11:49 AM EST
Most Americans have no clue about Venezuela, or Venezuelans. We see the world through our narrow
focus. The reason why we try to solve problems through our military, only, is that we think the
world so much wants to be like us, and would just give their lives to be like us.
No...the world wants to be left alone to live the way they see fit. We can't stand the fact
that we are not the savior of the world. Our leaders do stupid things for all the wrong reasons,
simply because, they like us, are ignorant of the rest of the world.
JoeCit, 11:47 AM EST
This 'fine' unbiased 'journalist' made the following statement, and in journalistic terms such
statements should be backed up with 'facts', of which I see no evidence of: "The first step was
when Hugo Chávez's socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything
from two-cent gasoline to free housing. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's a
good idea in general - but only as long as you actually, well, have the money to spend. And by
2005 or so, Venezuela didn't."
I will 'editorialize' that handouts only 'work' when such giving doesn't make them lazy and
entitlement-oriented, and doesn't end in a permanent state of expectation.
I think this 'article' should be, at best, considered a (biased) opinion piece. Shame on you
Washington Post.
elize88, 11:26 AM EST [Edited]
The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That
is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world.
Venezuela's problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was
not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger
did in Allende's Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela.
The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help.
ThomasFiore, 11:38 AM EST
They tried to cut the wages of people in their oil sector below the prevailing wage in the
rest of the world. The people left.
Back under Bush I remember Condi Rice trying to support the military government after an attempted
coup and that's our bad but that was the military intelligence side and not State. Venezuela has
worked to make itself an enemy to the US in the same way that Castro did with Cuba (the politics
of the Cold War don't work as well now that it's over so that hasn't really worked), but their
problems are their own and not our fault. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming
decade since they have aligned themselves with China and China seems to be turning inward.
elize88, 11:14 AM EST
Perhaps we need to travel a bit outside our little cocoon and see how others live. We think
that the rest of the world do think like us and share our cultural value. No...the world does
not consist of a monolithic thinking. That is our problem.
I travel quite a bit and see the emphasis on different culture values. Venezuelans or Latin
Americans may want the same "material" things as Americans, but the whole premise that of achieving
those goals may not be as a premium in their lives.
Get out into the world sometimes. Staying in a protective resort will not get you the understanding
you need.
Philosphical , 11:12 AM EST [Edited]
Socialists, socialists, it's all socialists. The USA is more likely to go bankrupt than socialist
Europe. We have the same or similar government expenditures as these terrible socialists, but
our politicians won't face reality and collect the taxes to pay for what they have to spend to
maintain our country and its people. We just have a lot more ability to borrow than Venezuela,
but it can't go on indefinitely, sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning for us. Of course,
the 1 per cent of I per cent who are paying our politicians will be largely unaffected by that
day of reckoning.
CapnRusty , 11:26 AM EST
The Federal Reserve "printed" trillions over the past seven years. The difference is that most
of that money went into our stock market, and caused the income disparity in America to grow.
Epaminondas Vindictor, 10:00 AM EST
Yeah, we know - socialism doesn't work. But having a welfare state, if managed fairly well
does work. We only need to look to Canada as a nearby example.
Yet Canada is not Cuba or Venezuela. And if you believe that Canadians are just itching to
ditch their health care system, look again. Even the previous conservative prime minister, Stephen
Harper, tried to privatize their health care system. No country wants a health care system like
that in the USA.
The 'free market' is not necessarily a competitive one. In the USA, it's more about plutocracy.
Facing Bosnian Sniper Fire, 10:05 AM EST
Good point! I don't want obamacare either!
bromisky, 10:11 AM EST
Remember, what you call Obamacare came from the Heritage Foundation...a conservative think
tank...
Tim the Enforcer, 1/29/2016 12:59 PM EST
Lemme guess: "Real socialism wasn't tried in Venezuela."
God Loves Me Best, 11:03 AM EST
Lemme guess: "Real capitalism didn't lead to the Great Depression, the Bush Recession, or any
of the dozen or so major "panics" in U.S. economic history."
Jessica20151, 1/29/2016 12:48 PM EST
My only guess is that Matt O'Brien has never been out from his day time job at the Washington
Post, typing stuff on his laptop computer he doesn't know, because he has never been to Venezuela.
My brother is an Engineer at British Petroleum at Valencia, Venezuela and I just came from
vacations from Venezuela, I found everything at the supermarkets, including a bottle of Scotch
Whiskey imported from England. My brother just purchased a brand new venezuelan built Toyota "machito"
for just $5,000 dollars. And people in Venezuela enjoys free public transportation, free hospitals,
free health care system, free medicines, free doctors, free dentists, elderly people and students
don't need to pay a single cent to ride the Valencia Subway or the Caracas Subway (Metro). And
people are employed, the unemployment rate in Venezuela is 2%. The economy is doing fine, I have
seen more people dragging carts full of trash and begging for money in the streets of Washington
DC than in Caracas. And please, stop watching FoxLiesNews.
"…the US need not push Russia into a corner, market forces are doing that work far more
efficiently."
I think you're confusing markets with the US government.
It is the fall in the price of oil in part caused by political decisions, and partly Obama's
illegal economic sanctions on Russia and US lies and propaganda and regime change directed at
Russia that are "efficiently" doing what they're doing.
Would be very surprised if Washington is successful with any of it's "market forces" regarding
Russia because Russia knows if it loses this matchup in Syria and retreats, the part that comes
next is it Uncle Sam funding ISIS like terrorists on Russian soil instead of Syria as it is now.
And if Russia can free itself of Western economic orthodoxy and dump the dollar, it will never
fear a falling Rubble so much ever again. Lets hope Putin orders a moving away of short term Russian
dollar holdings, so that a deliberate Russian default sees the West lose more in lost Russian
payments than it can seize in Russian assets held in their countries.
Then who would "market forces be efficiently working for"?
In broad simplified stroke, Russia is fighting on the side of the angels and US is the Darth
Vader of the world. The U.N. has said we have the biggest refugee crisis since WWII and the refugees
are all coming from nations the US is or has done regime change in. Aside for this meaning Obama
is directly responsible for the suffering if tens of millions of families and deaths of hundreds
of thousands, it also is producing maybe dangerous right wing political reactions in Europe.
The Russians are smart enough to know the difference between economic sanctions and military
threats and US funded/promoted terrorism. I've watched their actions long enough to trust them
to make sound, intelligent responses (though was disappointed Lavrov agreed to allow Obama&Co
funded Al-qaeda like terrorists to be included as legitimate political opponents of Assad in the
peace talks).
Kerry was probably disciplining her or rehabilitating her; there musts be a tempered new consensus
at State. You're coming with me Vicki and you are going to behave like a rational, sincere diplomat
because you've got some big fences to mend.
Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has soufght to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian
relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately
the President's thinking.
Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has sought to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian
relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately
the President's thinking. (I could care less about the shaking or not shaking. Nuland's presence
is a sign of disrespect to Russia and the Russians know that perfectly well. This post is needed
and excellent.)
I think her presence and her humiliation (notice Kerry left the room) are the equivalent of
an apology to Lavrov and Russia for her dingbat, destructive role in Ukraine.
Interesting, thanks. I think the article is worthy. I certainly could not blame Lavrov for
snubbing this horrid excuse for a human being. The Kaganate of Nuland represents a portion of
Obama's foreign policy and reflects what will be ahead should HRC win the election. The entire
Kagan family should not be hired to do this work on behalf of "We the People," but there they
are… doing their evil thing.
Perhaps Nuland thought Lavrov was a subject of some kind. She's probably too arrogant and stupid
to figure it out, but she has now encountered a legitimate opponent. When the day of reckoning
comes for her, she may learn what responsibility is.
"... Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval. ..."
"... It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations. ..."
"... Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor. ..."
"... Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events. ..."
"... The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all. They must learn that simply because leaders appear to them, attempt to speak the same language and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people. ..."
"... the wanton destruction of communities belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. ..."
The relevance of the Soros connection may seem confusing to many. Certainly, however, no
one in their right mind will suggest that a man that has made his fortune bankrupting nations and
impoverishing their peoples lies awake at night wringing his hands over concerns for black people
in America.
Soros is most well-known for playing a major role in the funding and facilitating of the "Bulldozer
Revolution" in Serbia that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, Georgia's "Rose Revolution"
of 2003, the 2006 push to move Turkey toward a more Islamist governing structure, and even the Occupy
movement in the United States among a great many others - none of which brought anything other than
greater misery, impoverishment, and police state mechanisms to bear on the general public. The Occupy
movement, being the only exception, still brought nothing to its participants except the opportunity
to burn off excess anger and energy along with a few cracked protester skulls. It was otherwise an
incredible waste of time.
Regardless, the methods being used by the Soros machine in terms of the #blacklivesmatter
and other related campaigns across the country are much the same as those used in Europe to usher
in greater austerity, police states, and fascism through government-coup and social protest
- i.e. a coordinated media campaign to provide the general public with a false perception of events
as well as a false narrative, the use of social media and slogans, and the deployment of "swarming
adolescents" in the streets.
When media campaigns alone are not enough, there are other methods that are able to be implemented
if need be. For instance, a
Mother Jones report revealed the fact that in some areas where rioting began, there appears to
have been a concerted effort on the part of the authorities to create an environment in which riots
would be inevitable. For example, in an instance where it was reported that teens in Baltimore attacked
police by throwing rocks, it was never mentioned that police had corralled these teens - who should
have been on their way home - off the bus and into an area in between the mall and the high school.
According to onlookers, it appeared that both the teens and the police were surprised at the situation
- the police surprised at the lack of violence and the teens surprised that they were kept from going
home. Eventually, rocks and bottles were reportedly thrown at police and the situation deteriorated
from there. Of course, the entire story was never fully reported in the mainstream press. Still,
while the rocks and bottles may have started from those in the crowd, others may justifiably wonder
if there were not provocateurs already placed simply waiting to cause violence as soon as the tension
had reached a boiling point. As it is, it is very likely that protesters and police alike were dupes
in a devious game.
Consider also the fact that the Baltimore authorities, despite implementing heavy-handed tactics
against high schoolers on their way home, allowed criminals, thieves, and violent thugs to prey upon
innocent people, private property, and communities for quite some time without a serious effort to
stop them. In fact, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake even openly admitted that the looters
were allowed to riot
when she stated that "We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well." The police
were prevented from actually stopping the riots and were kept largely unequipped as well. In other
words, the riots were both allowed and encouraged until they had reached a boiling point
and the National Guard was called in.
Of course, the color revolution and destabilization is not merely some communiqué presented to
a small group of people that organically takes on a life of its own. There is an entire science behind
the application of a movement of destabilization both when it takes place overseas as well as when
it takes place domestically.
As Pottenger and Frieson of Color Revolutions and Geopolitics write,
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to)
marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism
and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting,
entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and
dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent
their audiences' intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based
behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by
social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers,
PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure,
these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists,
strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non-
governmental organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social
revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government
of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular
democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily
predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions
guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations
and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking
these events.
With this explanation in mind, consider the description provided by Ian Traynor of the Guardian
regarding the "revolutions" and "mass movements" which was taking place in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus,
and Georgia in 2004 and the time of the writing of his article. Indeed, Traynor's depiction of the
methodology used by the Foundations, NGOs, and government agencies stirring up dissent and popular
revolt is equally illuminating.
Traynor writes,
In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who
call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime
that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations,
the young Belgrade activists are for hire.
They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy,
single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara.
In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple
slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words "gotov je", meaning "he's finished",
a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.
In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime's days
are numbered.
Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy
mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.
These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and
intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically
elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.
The details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become
more and more advanced and sophisticated, particularly with the advent of social media.
As Jonathan Mowat wrote,
As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth
in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director
of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the "hypnotic effects" of television, specified that
the then new phenomenon of "swarming adolescents" found at rock concerts could be effectively
used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as
Dr. Emery reported in "The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,'' in the group's
"Human Relations," because the phenomena was associated with "rebellious hysteria." The British
military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War
I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery's concept saw immediate
application in NATO's use of "swarming adolescents" in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle
in 1967.[1]
[...]
In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university's
"Program for Social Innovations in Global Management," began a series of conferences to review
progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in "Human Relations" in 1991.
There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of "Social Architecture'' at the Wharton School, and
a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that "rock video in Kathmandu," was an appropriate image of
how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of
a "global civilization." There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, "building
internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,'' and
"creating global events" through "the transformation of a local event into one having virtually
instantaneous international implications through mass-media."[2]
The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions,
destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.
They must learn that simply because "leaders" appear to them, attempt to speak the same language
and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people.
Protests are necessary. Directed rage may also be necessary. But the wanton destruction of communities
belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed
back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. Baltimore is not
an isolated collection of dupes, it is a microcosm. It is time the American people wise up and become
street smart before it is too late.
"... The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish. ..."
"... The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. ..."
"... President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. ..."
"... Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. ..."
"... Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law. ..."
"... At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy? ..."
"... The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war. ..."
While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer
of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from
Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track
legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors
may wish.
The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look
like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS
without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely
open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or
she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him
unlimited power to wage war.
President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking
the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded
Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering
to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous
Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when
they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens
in Benghazi.
It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week
the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul
in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe
Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for
a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face
to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast,
we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.
The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi
Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks
will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect
these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?
The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's
power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest
threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch,
the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless
war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.
Let's be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization,
the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.
Actually you should use separate PC for you banking transaction and taxes. this can be older PC
or a cheap laptop bought specifically for this purpose, or at least a VM. But it should be a separate
operating system from OS that you use to browse internet. Doing such
things on Pc you use for regular internet browsing is playing with fire.
Notable quotes:
"... mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important ..."
"... if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence ..."
"... one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open ..."
"... The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X ..."
"... We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption. ..."
Next up is ditching old, unused or poorly maintained software. Using software is a commitment.
If you don't update it, you are wearing a "hack me" sign on your forehead. So if there are programs
or apps that you don't use, delete them.
This year, I decided to ditch my instant messaging client Adium. I was using it to enable encrypted
chats. But like many cash-strapped open source projects, it is rarely
updated and has been linked to many
security
vulnerabilities.
mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor
Authentication (2FA) for all email & financial services accounts:
gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much
less important
if a financial service provider does not have 2FA,
then drop them for incompetence
one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page
open (actually you should have a separate Pc for such transactions, or at least a VM -- NNB) the only item running on your PC at the time no other software or open web page should be running,
because those other open software can possible view your account info.
The greatest thing I did to upgrade my security was to dump anything
and everything related to apple. Moved on over to open source Linux
Mint and yes, I still use Tor.
The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical
support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself.
Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X:
http://www.cvedetails.com/top-...
Jonathan
So for Mr & Ms Average Internet user you are going to suggest they switch to Tor and the
dark web? Before they worry about password security? Perhaps for a journalist anonymity is
paramount but most folks are only going to expose themselves to even more malware down that
path. Better to suggest that users switch to a browser that autoupdates itself and install the
HTTPS Everywhere plugin. We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt
Tillie need strong encryption.
Gordon Bartlett
Sorry, but it's not clear what you mean by "updating your software." Try giving specific
examples of, say, what a person running Windows on their PC or Android on their mobile phone
would do on their own to upgrade, assuming, as you do, that the patches we periodically
receive from MSFT, etc. are inadequate.
JSF
I am a retired IT professional from a federal government agency. Most of our users who
needed secure communication were rather techno phobic. Try Explaining public/private keys. I
have tried some programs like signal, PGP etc. They all require the recipient to use the same
software. Signal said "invite your contacts" I am pretty sure any one getting this invite
would consider it spam, pfishing or a virus.
The sender might not know where the recipient is located. If the Corp locks their users
machines it requires IT intervention to install anything which could be days or longer not
really conducive to time sensitive information. We need to develop better technical solutions
for people who are not tech savvy
"... And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses ..."
"... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. ..."
"... Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles. ..."
"... The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said. ..."
"... While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . ..."
"... "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?" ..."
"... Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. ..."
"... The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses. ..."
"... In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation. ..."
"... In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar. ..."
"... Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account. ..."
WASHINGTON - When President Obama secretly authorized the
Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming
Syria 's embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help
pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the
CIA has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia .
Since then, the CIA and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the
rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current
and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money,
and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decadeslong relationship between
the spy services of
Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal,
support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes,
as in
Syria , the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written
checks underwriting American covert activities.
Decades of Discreet Cooperation
The joint arming and training program, which other Middle East nations contribute money to, continues
as America's relations with Saudi Arabia - and the kingdom's place in the region - are in flux. The
old ties of cheap oil and geopolitics that have long bound the countries together have loosened as
America's dependence on foreign oil declines and the Obama administration tiptoes toward a diplomatic
rapprochement with Iran.
And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual
self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of
the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has
been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of
women and its support for the
extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism , that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the
United States is fighting. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia's
public beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged
the royal family.
Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent
of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support
had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and
former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition
of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
"They understand that they have to have us, and we understand that we have to have them," said
Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman from Michigan who was chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee when the
CIA operation began. Mr. Rogers declined to discuss details of the classified program.
American officials have not disclosed the amount of the Saudi contribution, which is by far the
largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad's
military. But estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion
dollars.
The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia - and from Qatar, Jordan and
Turkey - at a time when Mr. Obama has pushed gulf nations to take a greater security role in the
region.
Spokesmen for both the CIA and the Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.
When Mr. Obama signed off on
arming the rebels in the spring of 2013, it was partly to try to gain control of the apparent
free-for-all in the region. The Qataris and the Saudis had been funneling weapons into Syria for
more than a year. The Qataris had even smuggled in
shipments of Chinese-made FN-6 shoulder-fired missiles over the border from Turkey.
The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence
chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in
Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The CIA helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the
Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012.
By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria as
the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups - even some that American officials were
concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.
The CIA was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House under
the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not weapons. In late
2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the CIA director,
delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the
Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another
or with CIA officers in Jordan and Turkey.
Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training
the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance.
Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence
agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank
missiles.
The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as
an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest
contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point
in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the
CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden
declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior
officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of
the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being
done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with,"
the statement said.
When relations among the countries involved in the training program are strained, it often falls
to the United States to broker solutions. As the host, Jordan expects regular payments from the Saudis
and the Americans. When the Saudis pay late, according to a former senior intelligence official,
the Jordanians complain to CIA officials.
While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money
for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table,
and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst
and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
.
The CIA training program is separate from another program to arm Syrian rebels, one the Pentagon
ran that has since ended. That program was designed to train rebels to combat Islamic State fighters
in Syria, unlike the CIA's program, which focuses on rebel groups fighting the Syrian military.
While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war
against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens
continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said.
"The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less
persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the
author of a book
on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation,
and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how
persuasive of an argument is it?"
In the near term, the alliance remains solid, strengthened by a bond between spy masters.
Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian
rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan
was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close,
and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist
groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American
power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through
the CIA station chief.
Current and former intelligence officials say there is a benefit to this communication channel:
The Saudis are far more responsive to American criticism when it is done in private, and this secret
channel has done more to steer Saudi behavior toward America's interests than any public chastising
could have.
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known
as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert
operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.
"And so the kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe
at a time when the United States was not able to do that," Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head
of Saudi intelligence, recalled in a speech at Georgetown University in 2002.
In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States
backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist,
Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will,"
recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation.
In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to
drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars
each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar.
The money flowed through a CIA-run Swiss bank account. In the book "
Charlie
Wilson's War ," the journalist George Crile III describes how the CIA arranged for the account
to earn no interest, in keeping with the Islamic ban on usury.
In 1984, when the Reagan administration sought help with its secret plan to sell arms to Iran
to finance the contra rebels in Nicaragua, Robert C. McFarlane, the national security adviser, met
with Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington at the time. The White House made
it clear that the Saudis would "gain a considerable amount of favor" by cooperating, Mr. McFarlane
later recalled.
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding
to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands
bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept
its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by
Lawrence E. Walsh , the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments,
like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
"... While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran. ..."
"... These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel ..."
... The government last week made one of its most significant
gains since the start of the Russian intervention, capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.
While recent gains do not appear to mark a tipping point in the conflict, with rebels fighting
back and regaining positions in some places, insurgents describe high levels of attrition on the
front lines of western Syria.
Officials close to Damascus say sealing the northwestern border with Turkey is the priority. A
Syrian military source said rebel supply lines from Turkey, which backs the insurgents, were under
pressure from Russian and Syrian air strikes.
... ... ...
"Most opposition-held areas turned to defense because of the huge mobilization by Russians troops
and the use of a large number of planes with unlimited munitions," said Jamil al-Saleh, commander
of a rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) group.
While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels'
foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that
are also backed on the ground by Iran.
"These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial
bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel and the aid given is little
compared to the ferocious attack," he told Reuters.
Saudi Arabia's support for the opposition has yet to be translated into the kind of heavier weapons
the rebels are seeking, notably anti-aircraft missiles.
The military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rebels were suffering from the destruction
of their weapons depots, made possible by good intelligence. Their appeals for more support showed
they had "lost a lot of field capacities", the source said.
"... In a presentation titled Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying. ..."
"... Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include: ..."
"... Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook; ..."
"... Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence; ..."
"... Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who overdose in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games; ..."
"... Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period; ..."
"... Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period. ..."
We ARE what we THINK - not what we look at, or what we look like, or what we think we look like.
In fact, the visual cortex can be highly deceptive when it comes to the functioning of the brain.
Optical illusions exploit this brain trick.
Most practically, overloading of the visual cortex reduces higher brain function to nearly zero.
It's a very subtle process, not understood by many TV watchers. TV makes you stupid by overloading
your visual cortex, at a certain Hz frequency, which affects your reptilian brain. This is
why you get the munchies when you watch TV, or laugh without reason. Facebook is a lot more
effective at this because the associations are stronger (i.e. your friends) and it's interactive
- making the users feel as if they are controlling their reality.
The fact is that users are not controlling Facebook - Facebook is controlling you. They
have set the stage which is limited, and allow users few useful tools to manage this barrage on your
mind. The only way to really stop this invasive virus from spreading: turn it off!
Reasons to delete your Facebook:
Stop sharing personal details with the US government and a host of other interested groups
Enjoy more time in your life, which can be used to pursue a hobby, write a book, or learn
a foreign language
Fill your brain with something wholesome! Plant a tree!
Lose weight
Increase your IQ
Increase the speed of your computer
Increase the speed of your internet
Discover the thousands of other more interesting sites on the internet - such as Wikipedia!
Learn about Quantum Physics! Did you know that major universities now publish their complete
course videos online? Users can literally get a full college education by attending Stanford
(but without the degree of course) compeltely for free, online. A good start - the Khan
Academy www.khanacademy.org
No one can argue that Facebook has provided families with means of keeping in touch at long distances.
Many grandparents wouldn't otherwise see photos of their growing grandchildren. But there are
hundreds of other social networks, private networks, and other methods, of doing the same thing -
without all the 'crap' that comes with Facebook. Remember the days when we would email photos
to each other? We'd spend time even cropping photos and choosing the best one. Now, users
on Facebook will even snap away photos of their daily dinner, or inform the world that they forgot
to wash their socks. Facebook users who engage in the practice of 'wall scanning' have little
room in their brains for anything else.
Children are also a consideration with Facebook. Web Filters actually block facebook the
same way they block other illicit sites. Parents can probably relate to this article more than
the average user. Average users have accepted spam crap as part of life. It's in our
mailboxes, it's on billboards on our highways, it's everywhere. But really - it's not!
Facebook has been banned in corporate networks, government offices, schools, universities, and
other institutions. Workers at times would literally spend all day posting and reading Facebook.
It's as useless as TV - but much more addicting. From
Psychology Today:
Below we review some research suggesting 7 ways that Facebook may be hurting you.
It can make you feel like your life isn't as cool as everyone else's.
Social psychologist Leon Festinger observed that people are naturally inclined to engage in
social comparison. To answer a question like "Am I doing better or worse than average?" you
need to check out other people like you. Facebook is a quick, effortless way to engage in social
comparison, but with even one glance through your News Feed you might see pictures of your
friends enjoying a mouth-watering dinner at Chez Panisse, or perhaps winning the Professor
of the Year award at Yale University. Indeed, a study by Chou and Edge (2012) found that chronic
Facebook users tend to think that other people lead happier lives than their own, leading them
to feel that life is less fair.
It can lead you to envy your friends' successes. Did cousin Annabelle
announce a nice new promotion last month, a new car last week, and send a photo from her cruise
vacation to Aruba this morning? Not only can Facebook make you feel like you aren't sharing
in your friends'
happiness, but it can also make you feel envious of their happy lives. Buxmann and Krasnova
(2013) have found that seeing others' highlights on your News Feed can make you envious of
friends' travels, successes, and appearances. Additional findings suggest that the negative
psychological impact of passively following others on Facebook is driven by the feelings of
envy that stem from passively skimming your News Feed.
It can lead to a sense of false consensus. Sit next to a friend while
you each search for the same thing on Google. Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble
(2012), can promise you won't see the same search results. Not only have your Internet
searches grown more personalized, so have
social networking
sites. Facebook's sorting function places posts higher in your News Feed if they're from like-minded
friends-which may distort your view of the world (Constine, 2012). This can lead you to believe
that your favorite political candidate is a shoe-in for the upcoming election, even though
many of your friends are saying otherwise…you just won't hear them.
It can keep you in touch with people you'd really rather forget.
Want to know what your ex is up to? You can…and that might not be a good thing.Facebook stalking
has made it harder to let go of past relationships. Does she seem as miserable as I am? Is
that ambiguous post directed at me? Has she started
datingthat guy
from trivia night? These questions might better remain unanswered; indeed, Marshall (2012)
found that Facebook users who reported visiting their former partner's page experienced disrupted
post-breakup emotional recovery and higher levels of distress. Even if you still run into your
ex in daily life, the effects of online surveillance were significantly worse than those of
offline contact.
It can make you jealous of your current partner. Facebook stalking
doesn't only apply to your ex. Who is this Stacy LaRue, and why is she constantly "liking"
my husband's Facebook posts? Krafsky and Krafsky, authors of Facebook and YourMarriage
(2010), address many common concerns in relationships that stem from Facebook use. "Checking
up on" your partner's page can often lead to
jealousy and
even unwarranted suspicion, particularly if your husband's exes frequently come into the picture.
Krafsky and Krafsky recommend talking with your partner about behaviors that you both consider
safe and trustworthy on Facebook, and setting boundaries where you don't feel comfortable.
It can reveal information you might not want to share with potential employers.
Do you really want a potential employer to know about how drunk you got at last week's
kegger…or the interesting wild night that followed with the girl in the blue bikini?
Peluchette and Karl (2010) found that 40% of users mention
alcoholuse on
their Facebook page, and 20% mention sexual activities. We often think these posts are safe
from prying eyes, but that might not be the case. While 89% of jobseekers use social networking
sites, 37% of potential employers do, as well-and are actively looking into their potential
hires (Smith, 2013). If you're on the job market, make sure to check your privacy settings
and restrict any risqué content to "Friends Only", if you don't wish to delete it entirely.
It can become addictive. Think society's most common addictive substances
are coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol? Think again. The DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)
includes a new diagnosis that has stirred controversy: a series of items gauging Internet
Addiction. Since
then, Facebook addiction has gathered attention from both popular media and empirical journals,
leading to the creation of a Facebook addiction scale (Paddock, 2012; see below for items).
To explore the seriousness of this addiction, Hofmann and colleagues (2012) randomly texted
participants over the course of a week to ask what they most desired at that particular moment.
They found that among their participants, social media use was craved even more than tobacco
and alcohol.
Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids
In a presentation titled "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids"
at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his
findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and
his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying.
Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include:
Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook;
Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and
aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence;
Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping
problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who "overdose" in technology on a daily basis, including
Facebook and video games;
Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook
at least once during a 15-minute study period;
Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on
their computers during the 15-minute study period.
Facebook will cause lower grades for students, but it's OK for adults? hmm...
Facebook (FB) Investment Advice
It's just a matter of time when this will result in a major scandal, FB stock will crash, and
class action investigations will pile
up. Lawyers will have to hire companies
that automate workflow just to deal with the huge amount of securities class action settlements for
this case. The Facebook (FB) IPO disaster was a telling sign about this issue. Sell
it, block it, delete it, disgard it. Facebook is a bunch of trash. There's no technology
behind it. There are a huge amount of struggling companies that have developed really ground
breaking technology that will change the life of humans on this planet earth. Facebook (FB)
is not one of those companies. Facebook (FB) is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a
liability. And it's unsolveable.
Delete your Facebook account, sell your Facebook stock if you have it - it's guaranteed that by
doing so, you can grow your portfolio, increase your IQ and overall well being. Save your business,
save your family, save your life - and delete this virus!
Looks like Iran if far from safe even after sanctions were lifted...
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that were the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They dont argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, theyll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. ..."
"... NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, theres no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, theres no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesnt matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone whos not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. ..."
"... Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washingtons policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. Thats all it takes: you dont admire us and have military force – thats all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. ..."
"... Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – thats fine. If they cant, theyll use war. Its that simple. ..."
"... They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You cant just look at today and say "theyre not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. ..."
"... The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then its been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. Theres no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? ..."
"... Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, thats the problem. When they start to use force, theres no holding them back, and they dont care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. ..."
Obama's time as leader of the US is coming to an end - his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents
have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year
of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to,
and it's okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington
finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet
unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author
of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze :William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers like "Rogue State" and "America's
Deadliest Export", welcome to the show, it's great to have you with us. Now, Hillary Clinton has
announced she's running to become the Democrats' presidential candidate; Jeb Bush is also likely
to put his bit forward for the Republicans. Now, Bush, Clinton – we've been here before. Who would
be better candidate do you think? Not just for the U.S., but also for the world, like, global peace
efforts, for instance?
William Blum: I don't think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the
White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change... I can add Obama
to that. It wouldn't even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign
policy.
SS: Why do you think it's the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different
from each other?
WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination,
at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals
to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we're the exceptional
nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values,
American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They don't argue about that
at all, except through their campaign debate, they'll take certain opposing views just to appear
different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination.
SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no
longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck.
Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans –
why not?
WB: Because NATO shares America's desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the
U.S. foreign policy, there's no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy
and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO,
US is its main supporter and financial source, there's no distinction between US and NATO, and they
share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn't matter whether Iran is doing this
or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who's not a lover of the Empire
has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not.
SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this "domination" theory – NATO has been strengthening
its eastern borders with military building up on Russia's doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to
include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?
WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire's
expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba
or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence:
Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic
criteria of Empire's expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries
I've named – from Cuba to Russia.
SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies?
WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course
they would use force! They've used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they've supported Cuban
exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S.
policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted
to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate
more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary
parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled
in all of human history, and there's no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if
some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S.
SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. - the French
intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine.
So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long?
WB:Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate:
one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington's policy,
it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That's all it takes: you don't
admire us and have military force – that's all it takes to be an enemy of Washington.
SS: The problem is, there's a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have
arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it's not the first such deployment we've seen.
So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?
WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not...or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia,
Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side,
and there's no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some
point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there's no backtracking
from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone,
including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don't share that view, they are enemies,
and at some point they may be met with military force.
SS: So are you saying that America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military
personnel to Ukraine – like I've said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America's involvement?
WB:Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they
can achieve domination peacefully – that's fine. If they can't, they'll use war. It's that simple.
SS: So, like you've said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there's also Estonia
and they meet NATO's funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn't the alliance
important to them as well?
WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial
needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It
is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against
Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there's
no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington's
policies in Ukraine or elsewhere.
SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues
like Syria, Islamic State, there's Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states
work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?
WB: They don't have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various
countries are enemies of the U.S. - that doesn't make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat
to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally
independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don't believe in the Empire, as long
as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded
them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat?
There's no threat. If Russia doesn't announce Libya as a threat, it's not because Russia has a different
foreign policy – it's because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for
world domination.
SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems
to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia?
It's not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right?
WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can't put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned
before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of
the U.S. and Israel, and it's very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense
systems.
SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it's not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq
or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions,
lately.
WB:They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will
not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to
Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday
it is something different. You can't just look at today and say "they're not fighting here and there"
and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow,
or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination.
SS: Now, you've written in one of your books, the "Rogue State" that if you were President, you'd
end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left
Iraq and look what happened.
WB: If I were a President, yes, that's what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you've
quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So,
that's what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire's policies. But I would have great
time for the first few days.
SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because,
we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread.
WB:The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major
states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya
and overthrew that secular government. Then it's been in the process now, for some years, attempting
to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There's no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have
been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped
out by Washington. Why will they stop now?
SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for
American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go
to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.
WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a
progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what
happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don't tell me about US policy helping
the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan.
SS: You've also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What
makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I'm
talking about right now, I am not talking about "if America hadn't invaded them back then". Right
now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to
exist as well?
WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what
we've done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am
not sure I would say the same thing again. We've unleashed ISIS, and they're not going to be stopped
by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily.
They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may
be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy.
SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups?
WB:Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to
attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they
will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America.
They cannot be trusted, that's the problem. When they start to use force, there's no holding them
back, and they don't care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria
and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere
else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world.
SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all
these countries, and makes revolutions – from people's point of view, revolutions and overthrows
are really impossible if they are not conducive to people's moods on the ground. So you're saying
the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I
wonder – don't locals have control over their own direction at all?
WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever
on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these
things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it's too late. They can't do
anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to
stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was
closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of
business – but the US did not do that, and it's too late now. I don't know what to say, what will
save the world now.
SS: You've mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several
historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba's President Raul Castro, also Obama's
meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has
long considered arch-enemies?
WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment
nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I'm very sceptical. For example, with
Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society.
That has not changed, and I don't think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can't
apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he's saying now may have
to do with his so-called "legacy". He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies
amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don't
know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he's saying these things – but they don't mean
anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever.
SS: So you're saying there's really no substance in those meetings... Now, looking back, what would
you call Obama's biggest achievements of his two terms - I mean, people say there's been a reconciliation
with Cuba, with Iran, there's an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan,
he didn't move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that?
WB: Yes, all of that. There's no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn't move troops into Syria because
of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made
a remark about "it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that's not
going to happen" he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said "Oh really?
We'll arrange that" - and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip
of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing
about any of the things you've mentioned. There's no substance involved in any of these policies.
The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I've mentioned before, they are bombing Syria's military
assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they
will never escape.
SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian
and author of bestsellers "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export" discussing matters of the
US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions
at once. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.
"... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
"... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
"... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
"... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this.
Graun is
difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make
it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.
Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends
to mess up the btl however..
We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a
supporter for just 50 pounds per year.
WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian,
I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.
I cannot get even one word
typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if
someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one
letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.
THIS is WHY I
use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems
anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic
videos and other tactics is not advertising.
It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I
want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me
off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the
nerve.
Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough
they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.
Another thing is the
ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist
overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do
not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling
class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.
It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.
"... For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. ..."
"... Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenners theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. ..."
"... Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). ..."
"... But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, heres what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: surplus extraction is purely economic, achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely economic COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production. ..."
"... Corey, lets define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on economic COERCIONS . Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from force , defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way. ..."
"... So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism. ..."
"... coerced in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) primitive accumulation. ..."
"... found The Politics of Capitalism (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. ..."
I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood's work late in life. I had known
about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist,
who was constantly urging me to read Wood's work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the
suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman. I read her
The Origins of Capitalism . It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous
and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak-not
to just to me but to many others-at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged
fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by
specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and
economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of
capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange,
that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation
of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through
acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily
through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward.
Just last week, I had started reading
Citizens to Lords , and I'd been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask
her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person.
Now she's gone
. The work continues.
1
I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of
of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal
coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen's somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed
with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating
together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she'd probably have said "political")
constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary
alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify
the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from "paleo-Marxism"
(by which they meant Ellen) or from "Croatian nationalism" (by which they meant Branka Magas and
Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only
thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen
basically wrote the statement here:
Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies.
Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…
'The Origins of Capitalism' was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really
made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner's work, and the
debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another
piece that I really liked.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm
@1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood
was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling
Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management,
the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy
via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.
Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy's Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard
in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster's
leadership decided to return to Sweezy's economics rather than Robert Brenner's, which Wood had
been defending during her time at the helm.
For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of
competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth.
This
applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing
and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price
competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division
of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations
and wage repression.
For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert
Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner's
theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the
consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched
by Brenner's work and Wood's critical defense of it.
Robin: "She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms:
that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for
barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of
capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force
(albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."
This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery
and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based
in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England
must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive
English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to
work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries.
Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson,
Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try
to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course
it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.
I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against
vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism
were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the
new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily
the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the "force" of economic competition
in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force
as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.
Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I'm not sure I really understand your
comments, but to the extent that I do, you're wrong that Wood didn't think force, both political
and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about
capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it's that unlike feudalism, the moment
of appropriation of the workers' surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent
of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the
entire system. In any event, here's what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies
capitalism: "surplus extraction is purely 'economic', achieved through the medium of commodity
exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely 'economic' COERCIONS, sell their labour
power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production." (Origins of Capitalism,
56)
Corey, let's define terms so we can understand each other.
We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions.
You say that for Wood the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS". Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from "force", defined as the
use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent
to act in a determinate way.
You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on "the appropriation of surplus" being "separate
from the moment of coercion."
One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system
depends on "'economic' COERCIONS".
What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion
though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private
property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood's focus; her differentia
specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.
Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but
has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit,
and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing
investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist
enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).
Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in
early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically
coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates
the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.
So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct
appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to
characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.
Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of
force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France)
but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe).
Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity
growth and capital accumulation.
This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets
England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.
But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated
by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English
agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not
the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial
as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves
been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).
Robin writes: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts
of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily
through the economy)."
Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.
1. What do you mean by force?
2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me,
yes.
4. Does "force" include for you "'Economic' coercions"? For me, no.
5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
7. Do you agree with Wood's explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.
@RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism.
Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx
on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but
that doesn't necessarily make her wrong about history.
jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm
16
Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating "force"
and "coercion" is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much "force" as
it is "coercion". Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus,
if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution.
Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.
The basic 'model' or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly)
is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are 'forced'
to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10
thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own
means of production) are 'coerced' in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not
coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g.
the enclosures or (other means of) 'primitive accumulation'. The historical accuracy of this is
a separate question; but it's what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says
in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)
Not having read Wood's works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately
found 'The Politics of Capitalism' (Monthly Review, September, 1999 -
http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/
) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war
but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from
the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a
more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and 'market socialism'
than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….
In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being "forced"
to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more
concerned about the how English tenant famers' dependence on the market for agricultural leases
and inputs (including labor power) "forces" them to recover their costs through the market and
thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.
Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the
dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for
landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this
forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin
to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational
economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or
extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated
via market activity.
And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity
that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization
of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building
of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and
forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate
a surplus.
For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey
Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how
capitalism really does depend on force.
In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins
and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.
Here are some problems with the story.
On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released
were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for
the new industries.
It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist
warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the
success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization,
and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power
to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England
as Wood did.
Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and "exorbitant"
wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central
force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.
Here is Robin again: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through
acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised
primarily through the economy)."
Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing
usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have "coercion" and then the two forms
of coercion: "economic coercion" and "extra-economic coercion" or "force". Coercion that operates
through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting
terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.
To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding
of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism,
Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is
summarizing her.
The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle
in the English countryside in Wood's account which is basically Brenner's simplified; after that,
force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what
distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.
The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the
origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early
landless proletariat is basically also ignored.
It's highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is
based on force.
Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear,
and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.
Pair it with Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism , and you've got a highly
accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism - what it does, where
it came from - and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.
"Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern,
and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely
taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of
development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing
for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations." Neville Morley @ 30
Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the
axes you're grinding?
"... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now.
Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100
a barrel. ..."
"... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that
was for frozen by US banks . ..."
"... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which
has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.
..."
"... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets
hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their
doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American
buddies... ..."
"... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from
emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I
am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans
to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
"... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable
than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
"... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of
US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
"... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by
conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an
Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam
Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody
Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally,
thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
"... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones?
Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just
second to oil. ..."
"... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods. ..."
"... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has
some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama
say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to
addressing the situation. ..."
"... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history
of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
"... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad
thing. ..."
"... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
..."
"... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt
let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic
attitude towards west ..."
"... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still
be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country,
disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
"... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you
visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
"... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
..."
"... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and
naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster
for the House of Saud. ..."
"... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of
subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection
of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader
gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable
results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout
for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper,
or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
"... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he
can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah
assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate.
We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So
it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast
the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines,
weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of
some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at
what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
"... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil
online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance,
cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream
media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
"... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad
bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia
which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It
seems not. ..."
"... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered
his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
"... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality,
though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown
themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least.
Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy
is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any
other country. ..."
"... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a
matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear
issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond
knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though
a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
"... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power,
if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us.
It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then
East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
"... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer
to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years
without having a war with them ..."
"... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum
out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
"... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians. ..."
"... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that
the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw
yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a
nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
"... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran
out or start to build bridges. ..."
"... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The
annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently
since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda
arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon
programme. ..."
"... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never
know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given
it dysfunctional political system. ..."
"... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel
have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures
its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi,
as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region.
Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and
supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
"... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran
plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
..."
"... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits
(for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash
on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
"... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly
similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
"... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the
talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the
soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged
in by interviews. ..."
"... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights
abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons,
all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny.
While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans
too. ..."
"... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at
will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with
impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant
to see it? ..."
"... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For
me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated
and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
"... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
..."
"... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict
sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
"... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran
with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and
funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
"... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
"... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back
to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
"... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children,
Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the
worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
"... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
"... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is.
No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
"... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a
time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve
already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy
is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while
what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies
realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion
over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
"... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these
liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to
insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
"... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure
and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative,
and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors
accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed
to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained
a base. ..."
It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever
now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket,
oil at $100 a barrel.
Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit
from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that
they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical
maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good
day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and
his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back
in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.
Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money
that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not
lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran
which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a
failed state.
A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric,
and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years.
However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing
the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of
amounts to the same thing.
"There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been
the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill,
the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."
For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that
have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made
the process slightly slower - that's all
Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the
US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up
to then to help
him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping
with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).
The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began
in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started
by then.
No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...
With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen.
As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery
being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance
to Lübeck..).
Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma
then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is
about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope
they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on
their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns
from the new American buddies...
Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to
Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state
of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical
about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.
Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in
sabotaging the agreement.
If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more
reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys
shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to
war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds
of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors).
The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries
for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably
later today.
Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.
In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled
by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if
I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US
supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an
eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians
dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian
airliner).
And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's
not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak
of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't
be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy,
but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of
Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.
"It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy,
not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important
day," [Zarif] said.
Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?
Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian
ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in
Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't
want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end
of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago.
However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held
in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that
has been holding up the announcement.
Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open
markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall.
Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods.
There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until
they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society
and lives for the past 40 years.
So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better
for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive
to say at all?
They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and
other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This
is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the
US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between
nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they
improve human rights and expect it to work.
Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA,
has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President
Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is
not conducive to addressing the situation.
Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable
Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran
that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play
a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's
the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who
the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens,
they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other
toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
"But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq
for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may
have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...??
The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And
it worked.
Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come
when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth
visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly
lists and such.....
Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to
provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or
Afghanistan either.
Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll
agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with
the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there
than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could
be seen as defensive actions by Iran.
And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor.
That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really
terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and
create untenable nation states.
whose problems you blame entirely on the west -
No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over
British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was
doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.
ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had,
you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani
refugees.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle
East then?
You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange
Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?
The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong
evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry
were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans:
Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and
wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA
has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election.
It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you
blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather
than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East
then?
A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under
the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall
for so long
Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but
they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to
create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.
As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end
of the dark night, there is light."
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that
that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own
devices.
Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you
weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their
deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping
up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn
in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western
'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.
I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed
by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous
sectarian nonsense.
And would you also observe that most of these people would likely
still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing
thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their
country into chaos?
Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run,
regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering
certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial
to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated
people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the
fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the
theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or
two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ...
would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear
exactly how to apportion credit.
Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb,
and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do
with it. Really daft argument.
I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts
Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.
other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy
to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.
Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all
(though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's
due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In
any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.
There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is
all hypocrisy.
Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence
and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe.
And a disaster for the House of Saud.
If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number
of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will
be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian
clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations
and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations
will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such
time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected
as US President.
This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for
a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may
say about it.
The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!"
to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian,
Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness
for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria"
from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement
in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had
to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation
of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people,
they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It
doesn't bear thinking about.
On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi
regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've
now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.
I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much
oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of
barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time
will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time
to further suppress oil prices.
Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is
a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat
than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the
likes yet do we care. It seems not.
If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly
Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass
the bong.
I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is
a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are
attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that
know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used
for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail
their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly
USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical
details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook
and blogsville!
Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers,
so pathetic are their arguments.
If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to
feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't?
And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first
place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at
any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said
that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if
it ever did).
But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously
way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon.
Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.
Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state
for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship
to them during his presidency.
Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we
in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them
diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand
off.
Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to
some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian
Golf!
That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.
Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter
Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as
a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And
the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty
though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels
'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them
well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it,
but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys'
11,500km away from their own territory.
But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran
is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively,
the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than
the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in
these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's
nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a
later stage.
For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest
triumph of diplomacy in recent years.
A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and
their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding
them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked
under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction,
and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile
mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones
having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich
would be ruling the world today.
The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were
people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal
with Iran.
If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically.
I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption,
the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
"Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate
targets.
Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real
men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech,
then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress'
of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?
Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war
which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians?
Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers
on board?
Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost
the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians
are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel
proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't
see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
Win-Win
I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against
Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of
whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether
or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.
If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb.
In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one,
they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past
2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means,
just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their
perception thereof) - just like any other country.
Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is
largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has
to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight
from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent)
nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.
So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy
as the motivator.
If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically,
once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer
zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed
into a war.
I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off
power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for
the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by
Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.
All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.
Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its
closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with
them for 39 years without having a war with them
Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this
stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and
has
1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British
Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid
in 1953.
3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran
which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians.
5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.
If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems
that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of
relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And
I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened.
Take care, Iran.
4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted
sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that
the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead,
to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now
rejoice Iranian people. :-)
The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported
this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli
geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media
I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't
the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have
seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely
but compartmentalized they seemingly do.
I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding
information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow.
Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out
logically.
However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess
one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme
on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear
scale.
I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing
arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work
against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used
to attack it.
Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing
was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working,
Iran diversified its economy.
It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take
Iran out or start to build bridges.
I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This
is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should
be safe for 50 or so more years.
Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research.
The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this
fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics
enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the
charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall
came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were
the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason
to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking
US foreign policy in the post cold war period.
The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to
rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly
Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played
for patsy.
President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address
when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military
was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed
me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to
hear coming out of his mouth.
So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven
years?
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W.
Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current
US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes.
Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
and Afghanistan.
The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill
militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims
of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians
are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues
when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing
the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear
machine.
Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates
them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An
ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going
And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated
people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily
be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or
gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not
sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the
Gulf.
" there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever
you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does
not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could
even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot
be fit for purpose.
Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will
not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
"Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"
Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but
at a very low price.
This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows
the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf)
or those who indeed are the aggressors....
It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It
is a chess board.
Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves
around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic
infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered
through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years
since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the
state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal
I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave
Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in
all these failed states.
There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's
next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this
century.
May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment?
You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who
demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the
first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will
have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a
wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because
you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and
destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or
later, you will remember my words...
The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing
Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism
that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter
fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor
of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has
been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship
with money, troops and bombs.
Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism
for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if
you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....
It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism
if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.
It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly
even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier
for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition
as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions
of dollars.
I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration.
There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I
can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational
headline.
I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would
be dropped and everyone could get back to business.
They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the
Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the
end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they
finally saw sense.
Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China
and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in
general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline
to Chah Bahar.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its
way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.
Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people,
with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades
- of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and
I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And
given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the
Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this
much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing
its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted.
The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the
recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think
you were being relevant.
It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report
the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus
in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built
in or plugged in by interviews.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London
property making prices even more ridiculous.
Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market
in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even
then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward
six years. (price doubles every six years).
Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position
the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided
what the policy was they had little choice.
Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International
Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel
and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't
be sanctioned can it...
He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human
rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden'
nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected
to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be
at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration,
and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition,
genocide.
The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign
intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi
of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars,
now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous
claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize
a birthday party.
It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back
from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President
Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started
bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax
payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those
things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.
He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe,
to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
"Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric
sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a
complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's
site.
I also loved this quote:
"A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS
and they wound up off course."
So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead
'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the
Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory
will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all
those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery
would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians
were fibbing, as always?
Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil
prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense
of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able
to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.
No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon
sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN
etc
This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now
start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's
though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then
their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.
Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions
in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear,
as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions
measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack
of clarity with regards to the US."
Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed
off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating
an unnecessary situation further.
Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions
at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so
choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid,
too compliant to see it?
If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this
agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course,
if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical
experts. Are you?
Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view.
For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians
are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.
I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as
a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of
our sustainable employment in the UK.
If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations
offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"?
Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely
strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets
a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports,
his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the
sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept
that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his
boss chose the sensible option.
All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help
Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise
and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh
on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much
safer Thorium reactor
solution .
Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at
the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything
can happen.
It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers,
in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.
Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started,
ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it
should be different now.
Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit
Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply
succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you
can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement
for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that
will be dropped very quickly.
Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well
come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous
children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind
so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either,
but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that,
there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear
weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing
that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd
be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to
us.
Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which
is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.
They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has
proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the
teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most
things around the world is stunning.
The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual
Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice
their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible
weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based
on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force
(such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices
torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra
judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared
to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.
America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge
disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable
military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends
on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector
due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could
go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within
through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style
involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans
or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group,
but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time
and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the
United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized
sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and
not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to
reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.
German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms
as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote
in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low
of the workmen. "
German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance
of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate
the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances,
and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor
situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it
is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts
between capital and labor"
If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour
movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe,
or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent
standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment
insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade
unions.
It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe
diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like.
I do all the time. ;)
Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures
only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the
United States! This is wrong.
So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent
of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them
they are full of it.
When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia
for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the
Saudis?..
Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your
peril.
Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward
a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they ..
it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.
Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more
to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran
would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations
to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation
that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If
I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up
the potential to make a bomb?..
Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see
off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially
as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be
lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place
Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for
the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see
sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter
jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm
not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the
simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world
were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how
much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted,
other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies
would still have to comply with those restrictions.
Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria,
saying:
The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that
it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with
groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian
branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities
we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too
enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict
has seen too much of already.
That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate'
from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.
What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe
you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your
miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already
soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking
for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how
American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here
at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You
tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take
to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it
certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever
the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.
I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults
the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite
ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will
remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine
in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's
current hypocrisy stinks.
This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the
two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters.
Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier
group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things
at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.
The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians
come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can
say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it
enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country
really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing
in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to
high heaven. It smells like shit.
A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and
rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving
peace a chance"
PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman,
n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now!
.
Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me.
They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking
and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't
suit Saudi Arabia.
The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes
tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.
"Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published
relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way
for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to
the US."
Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for
a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not
last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business
because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence
trading.
That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very
dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being
asked surely?..
But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception
of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've
all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have
promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to
the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton
who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue
in that regard.
I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust
these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming
your way to insulate against future western blackmail.
I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's
listening .. Ha, yes we do!
Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective
punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small
businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was
two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive
in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not
sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear
arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting
in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital
joke.
Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress,
though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will
see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent
tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly
the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.
I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to
use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions
did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed
and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!
The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical
failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events
has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully
operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates
in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully
close to that island where Iran maintained a base.
Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke
Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear
they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians,
at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.
This is Guardian article written just before imposition
of sanctions in 2012.
Notable quotes:
"... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep
out of other peoples affairs. ..."
The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between
January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan
and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of
the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports
with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with
it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South
Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.
'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months
between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude
oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14%
and 13% respectively'
- I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here..
Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again
firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position
of power!
Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming
as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan
is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!
What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think
about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype
and played right into Bin Laden's hands.
Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick,
resolute' action.
We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for
the Iranian people either.
This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran
did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil
embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely
legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with
Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need
to keep out of other people's affairs.
The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes
vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides
in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat
on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues
to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators
around the world.
Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that
will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan
and North Korea.
I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the
undergrond test.....
That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.
I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves,
the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are
only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It
should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any
regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development
too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and
I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The
Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all
blow up.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
"... The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brothers (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President. ..."
"... There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS. ..."
"... No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity. ..."
"... there is a conflict at the top in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26 2015 and continues on in everything else ..."
"... Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force ..."
The BS nuclear deal between US and Iran was to get Iran to massively reduce its nuclear capabilities,
which except for a war which the US is no way near ready for, So sophisticated subversion and sanction
pressure was used instead.
And those corporations wanting access to Iran now what access to extract from Iran, not contribute
to it's economy.
All the huffing and puffing by the Israeli state terrorists and Saudi tyranny about that deal,
simply betrays their brutal idiotic methods, compared to more sophisticated methods to the US empire
is capable of.
And The US already set up the war showdown between Iran and Saudi Arabia, with its divide and
conquer policy, and its massive sales of weapons to the Saudi tyranny. That war is just A matter
of time. It's proxies first and then it's full scale engagement between those two states.
Unless you know something and are not sharing this article is speculation. Arming the Houthi's
would, in my opinion, be about as intelligent as was arming the Taliban in the 1980's. The armed
Houthi's may take care of the Saudi's (just like the Taliban took care of the Russians in that
case) but then who would take care of the Houthi's? and what other havoc would they cause? Different
players here but the tactic would be similar and have the same potential of backfiring in the
long run.
B, from what you are saying your 'smart move by KSA' is looking more and more like another dumb
move by KSA... If the Saudis had executed just 'al-Qaeda types' and put out a press release showing
how they are cracking down on terrorism the kingdom would be attracting support from their allies
right now--"Those Saudis are brutal but at least they know how to get the job done." Of course,
it's unclear how much right wing/Islamic State backlash they might have gotten domestically but
I suspect it would have been minimal as long as the unofficial KSA paychecks to the terrorists
kept coming.
There is another reason why Saudi Arabia created a crisis just after the killing of Alloush.
Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost its strongest
ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. It now worries that
the other side, the Syrian government will win an overwhelming diplomatic victory if the planned
meeting in Geneva takes place. Therefore it is doing all it can to prevent that meeting to happen.
The execution of Sheikh Nimr and the subsequent rupture of the diplomatic relation with Iran is
the first move. More of these desperate gesticulation are necessary. But as they'll fail to change
much of Iran and Russia's determination to move on on Syria, it will only confirm to the whole
world that it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the defensive,
but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.
#12 --
""Saudi Arabia has failed to set a serious Syrian opposition group. It has just lost
its strongest ally, Alloush, the leader of the militias it has been supporting for years. ""
good, excellent point ... this execution could simply have been payback ... and/or "dog ate
my homework" excuse providing for why they're going to, say, no-show in Vienna ...
It could be that the killing of Sheikh Nimr is to the Saudis what the shooting of the Russian
plane has been to the Turks: a provocative blunder with unexpected consequences.
The two Sunni leaders, Erdogan and King Salman are very close to loose the 4 years old game of
toppling Bashar al Assad. In these desperate moves, are they hoping to reshuffle the cards by
provoking Syria's allies?
They are Quahir1 missiles. While the Yemeni Forces claim they are upgraded , obsolete Soviet
ballistic missiles, re-engineered in Yemen,
Visual identification suggests that they are ancient, obsolete SAM-3 antiaircraft missiles,
( which the Yemen Army had thousands), with a new warhead and a guidance system conversion to
make them ballistic missiles.
To date, Iran has supplied nothing to the Ansrallah Movement, other than kind words,.....
And a single shipment of Humanitarian aid to Yemeni NGO's.
Sunni Islam is actually more democratic than Shia Islam. The Wahabist strain is just such a huge
departure from traditional Sunni values. I wish I saved all my conversations with a Muslim friend
about these issues. We boiled it down to making a comparison that Christians can understand. Sunni
Islam is similar to Protestantism is that it is highly decentralized. Anyone that reaches that
status of Iman (Minister) can issue a religious ruling (fatwa). Shia are similar to Catholics.
The Grand Ayatollahs are bishops but in the Iranian government the Grand Ayatollah is the Pope.
The Wahabist are....I do not know how to properly describe them.
Sunni have a natural inclination to a democratic government (I'm not saying that Shia do not,
1954...). Western Imperialism has prevented every moderate attempt. The only place left for Muslims
to organize is in radical religious groups. All other modes of reform have been destroyed. We
are all witnessing the children of the Dulles era CIA The world is awash in blood because two
sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers) took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President.
I still find it very interesting that everyone seems to think that these "smart, stupid" whatever
you want to call them are actually KSA independent choices
Lol they are flying the worlds most expensive toys in Yemen and getting their asses handed
to them. Trust me when i tell you this. Saudis and Emirate Arabs in general are nothing but Bedouin
desert dwellers or as the line from titanic goes "new money"
If people are too blind to see the British/US/Israeli hands in this then go ahead and keep
debating about the smoke screen or the true colour of wool being pulled over your eyes.
Saudis and Bahrain are not independent states. They are military bases for the US against Iran,
Rusia, China grabbing control of the rest of the middle east.
Executing "rabble rousing" Nimr , will in turn be the downfall of KSA and all these "Analysts"
think tanks and what not will finally realize that the ME is not what it always seems
"An Iraqi official blamed the Islamic State group on Monday for the bombing of two Sunni
mosques in a predominantly Shiite city in southern Iraq the previous night, saying the militant
group seeks to stoke sectarian tensions,"
AP reports. ISIS
"did this to inflame sectarian
strife in the country," provincial security official Falah al-Khafaji contends.
ZeroHedge speculates:
Taking it a step further, one has to wonder whether there's a larger plan here. That is,
if we assume ISIS, like the multitude of other Sunni extremist groups operating in the region,
is taking its cues from handlers and benefactors, it's not difficult to imagine that "someone"
could be attempting to create an excuse for an intervention in Iraq.
Save that date -- the next installment of Syrian peace negotiations:
"[Staffan] De Mistura is due to launch peace talks between Assad's government and the opposition
in Geneva on January 25, but it remained unclear whether the Iran-Saudi crisis would have an
impact on that plan.
De Mistura has flown to Ryadh and is due to then visit Tehran ... Yeah, I can't see these two
parties sharing a table ....
""UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the Saudi execution of
47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical of the Sunni
royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011. snip
In his talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir, Ban urged Saudi Arabia "to renew its
commitment to a ceasefire" in Yemen after the Riyadh-led coalition announced on Sunday that
it was ending the truce with Iran-backed rebels in the country.[yemen]
The U.N. envoy for Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, was to hold talks in Riyadh on Wednesday
to push for a renewed ceasefire.
@12 virgile '... it is not Bashar al Assad and his government that are weak, isolated and on the
defensive, but rather Saudi Arabia and its inept and amateurish leadership.'
Yes. Solid observation. How come their best friends in USrael didn't warn them of that particular
aspect of their stupid act?
@24 AEF '
The world is awash in blood because two sociopathic brother's (Dulles Brothers)
took over US foreign policy and eventually killed a President.
'
Ain't that the truth. Because of those two and their succeeding stream of 'investment bankers'
at the CIA
@33 SS from your link 'UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" by the
Saudi execution of 47 people including prominent Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, who has been critical
of the Sunni royal family and was a driving force behind anti-government protests in 2011.'
Ban Ki-moon is a US poodle, so this further indicates to me that USrael wouldn't mind at all
if there were a change in management in Saudi Arabia ... and if the place goes up for grabs, why
they - NATO - will just have to step in to provide 'stability'.
Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack
on the KSA Embassy, they certainly came prepared to torch the place and met little resistance
from Iranian security.
Would the Wahhabis be equivalent to a Christian Reconstructionist movement gone militant with
state funding?
@39 ATH,
I don't see how we can say policies are decided at the ballot box unless they can recall their
"representatives" as easily as they can elect them. It's part of the weak-mindedness of liberal
society that management somehow equals democracy.
"Iran is not known to allow irate citizens to run amuck so it might be a planned Basij attack
on the KSA Embassy..."
The same can be said about any country in the world and there is no need for a militia to do
that. It is a well known facts, maybe not by you but among those who are following the real news,
that the more than 10 or so Iranian embassies and consulates ransacked et pillaged during the
80's in the European cities were all done under the complacent eyes and noses of the security
services of the protecting states. In actuality I believe doing it the Iranian way, i.e. keeping
a façade of deniability, is more honorable that what the European state did... and for some are
still doing.
I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but
from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads.
The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative"
to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the
US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably
take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses
and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always
on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private
benefit?
It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens
within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy
outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials,
I'd love to hear it.
[1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping
every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.
I'm uneasy about Rouhani's rapprochement with the usurious Western financial sector[1], but
from a systems standpoint I'm more worried about corruption in the assemblies than the figureheads.
The usual failure mode of republics is that there is nothing binding the alleged "representative"
to the popular will post-election and no effective means to stop disloyalty in progress. In the
US, especially, we've had ample experience with "representatives" who, as an assembly, invariably
take on some sacred duty of delivering concrete material benefits to elites while delivering excuses
and pat stories (according to their Party's mythology) to their constituents. The question always
on my mind is, how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional private
benefit?
It could be that I'm not thinking Islamically enough with respect to the roles of citizens
within an Islamic society. But if Iran has a system that guarantees sturdy alignment of policy
outcomes with citizens' collective interests, even against vested interests of state officials,
I'd love to hear it.
[1] Islamic finance on Wall Street would mean dropping shock troops onto one end and chopping
every right hand down to the other end. I doubt I will be seeing this in the near future.
"Pariah status" or "rebuilding" a presumed broken relations "with the world" is what you have
been made to believe by the MSM. Iran is actually reducing tension in the nuclear dossier to better
work out its strategic realignment that are based on sovereignty and political independence. The
first sign of which has already appeared in a strategic alliance in Syria.
There is reasonable possibility that the decision by the Saudi dictatorship to execute
the high profile Shiite Sheikh Nimr may have been motivated, at least in part, by the desire to
deflect the probability of retribution by the Shiite-hating Islamic State since the majority of
the 47 executed along with Nimr were comprised of violent, hard-core Sunni devotees of ISIS.
From the Saudi prism, the orgy of executions was on the one hand, a performance intended to
downplay growing criticism of the kingdom's funding of the globally despised ISIS and on the other
end, an act of appeasing ISIS by killing this highly popular Shiite leader. Nimr's execution could
have been intended to mitigate the group's rage and reduce the potential to target Saudi institutions
instead of Shiite mosques as they have done in the past.
This sounds off topic but for the sake of a reply,
No political system is exempt from corruption and in my opinion this outcome might even
be somehow inexorable due to the nature of a state based polity.
The difference between the
Iranian political scaffolding and the European systems in particular but also, at the limit, the
American one is that the former is based on a younger society and still in formation while the
latters have already passed the middle-age period in their life cycle.
And to answer your question: "how to prevent the color of public interest from enabling disproportional
private benefit?" the only way for this to be possible in my opinion is the breakdown of states
with globalist reach into local and regional states with decision-making being directly made by
citizens... a Helvetic kind of confederation.
Not to forget, nearly a thousand Iranians died during the hajj in Mecca:
The
2015 Mina Crush disaster
has increased tensions in the already-strained relationship
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, led to calls from politicians in a number of Muslim nations for
changes in oversight of Mecca and the Hajj, and bolstered opposition to King Salman among the
senior members of the Saudi Arabian royal family.
how many think like
this author - michael krieger
from sept 30th 2015, that
there is a conflict at the top
in saudi arabia and only a matter of time where one or the other goes? it seems that since
Mohammad
bin Salman Al Saud
was given the position of 2nd in command in sa (and minister of defense
responsibility), a lot of shite has hit the fan... this began with the war on yemen in march 26
2015 and continues on in everything else
..
i don't know who is doing what inside the sa hierarchy, but it sure comes across as chaotic
and troublesome.. regime change is a distinct probability! which guy goes? the old guy, or the
young guy? scary either way..
"There have been direct concerns raised by US officials to Saudi officials about the potential
damaging consequences of following through on the execution, on mass executions, in particular,
the execution of" al-Nimr, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday.
Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus told a press conference on Monday that the execution
did not have Ankara's support.
"We are against all instances of capital punishment, especially when it is politically motivated,"
he said.
Both had meetings with the Saudis before their mass beheading festival and could have saved the
Saudi junior woodchuck if they wanted to. I wonder what's in the collapse of the present Saudi
regime for them? Control of orphaned Saudi oilfields in the one case and of orphaned Saudi Mamluk
terrorists in the other?
Nor is this mere speculation. Saudi Arabia for some time has been trying to provoke Iran. First
there was the Saudi military intervention in Bahrain. Then there were Saudi efforts to topple
the Assad regime. These were followed by the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Beirut in 2013,
which killed a number of Lebanese as well as Iran's cultural attaché. More recently, during
the Haj ceremonies, Saudi authorities harassed two Iranian youth and a large number of Iranian
pilgrims died as well. The Saudi government, moreover, created many difficulties for Iranian
officials trying to locate, identify, and transfer the bodies of the victims to Iran. And of
course Saudi Arabia launched a full-scale war in Yemen against what it claimed were Iranian-backed
rebels.
Another provocation came last month when Nigerian authorities arrested the country's Shia
leader, Sheikh Ibrahim Zakzaki, and the Nigerian army killed close to a thousand Shias for
spurious reasons. Following Sheikh Zakzaki's arrest Saudi King Salman reportedly congratulated
Nigeria's president for dealing effectively with terrorism (the king's definition of terrorism
apparently extends to the peaceful observance of religious rituals). Meanwhile, the abuse of
the Shias in other countries, notably Azerbaijan, continued as did their indiscriminate killing
by Saudi- influenced groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as illustrated by the beheading in
November of a nine-year-old Hazara girl in Afghanistan.
One also shouldn't forget that there's struggle going on between the "Group Abdullah" and the
"Group Salman".
Abdullah was the former king and Salman is the current king of Saudi Arabia. Former king Abdullah
and his "followers" did A LOT OF things to reduce the influence/power of the "Group Salman". E.g.
Abdullah appointed his followers to influential positions.
But now with Salman on the throne, Salman is doing the same thing with his followers. Appoint
as much of followers to influential positions as possible. And it seems the struggle is far from
over.
And Saudi Arabia is in "not the best of financial shapes". No surprise there. A combination
of:
- Falling/Fallen oil prices.
- VERY large military expenses (Yemen, Syria).
- Increased expenses for the saudi population. Saudi Arabia increased payments to its citizens
to bribe them into not revolting during & after the "Arab Spring" in 2011.
- ((Very) large) subsidies for Healthcare, electricity, gasoline.
Recently the saudi government increased the price of gasoline by 50% (!!!!) from 15 cents to
22 cents. Outrageous !!!!!!!!
Aircraft keep falling out of the sky over Yemen quite regularly. They are always described
as the result of 'technical reasons'. That covers a whole range of possibilities from engine failure
to back end of aircraft disappearing after missile strike.
Here is a report on a recent incident (30 Dec) involving a Bahraini F-16.
Thanks for those links, it's been my impression Yemen army/Houthis have no flak capability,
hence the Saudis control of the skies, and the carnage on civilians/damage to infrastructure.
I have read news of Saudi fighter jets downed over Yemen due to "technical failure" as you
mentioned, that could or could not be the Houthis/Yemen army. I certainly hope they develop AA
defenses, as the Vietnamese progressively did, that would help diminish the carnage and will give
the Saudis a pause in their impunity.
To be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the whole
response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly
effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it
simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.
The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the
past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister,
not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy
CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation
in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy
occupation there.
bqqTo be sure, the Iranian government is a complex organism with many moving parts, and the
whole response likely wasn't planned or coordinated by a single actor. But the result was highly
effective. It showed the Saudis that Iran took the execution as directed toward it. And it
simultaneously gave other countries the cover they would need to side with Iran.
The Americans, rather remarkably, took the Iranian side. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
let it be known that he was talking to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. In the
past, a U.S. secretary of state would've reached out solely to the Saudi foreign minister,
not least because there were no official diplomatic ties to Iran. Meanwhile, a former deputy
CIA director, Michael Morell, publicly praised the Iranians for their handling of the situation
in Tehran. This was downright astonishing, given Americans' historical associations with embassy
occupation there.
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control
of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force
Can any of you recommend a good blog/site following the events in Yemen? With the media
blackout it is very hard to find out was is really going on on the ground.. Txs.
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
"... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and
it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East –
from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door
negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct
reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy
away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to
the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to
prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more
direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin
America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro
government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri
government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed
taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent,
allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds
for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude
to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government
workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme
court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's
recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme
Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president
from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina,
Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class
compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular
government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected
president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of
the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher
stage in 2016.
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope
and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively
repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be
going south at this particular
point in time anyway.
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to
Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec
The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions –
still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew
"Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of
the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire
internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and
the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle
is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist
players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked
its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise
hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina,
and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the
U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
"... I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with
the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as
gatekeepers. ..."
"... The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey,
the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course. ..."
Abstract: This paper presents a case study of the August 1994 Cuban "balseros"-i.e.
rafters-crisis, commonly known as Mariel II, during which over 35,000 Cubans fled the island
and headed towards Florida. This paper argues that Castro launched the crisis in an attempt
to manipulate the US's fears of another Mariel boatlift, in order to compel a shift in United
States (US) policy, both on immigration and on a wider variety of issues. As the end of the
crisis brought with it a radical redefinition of US immigration policy toward Cuba, the paper
further contends that from Castro's perspective, this exercise in coercion proved a qualified
success-his third such successful use of the Cuban people as an asymmetric political weapon
against the US.
... one of the few arrows in Castro's quiver, he used it effectively. The article is about the
1994 Balseros Crisis, but Greenhill recounts : The Camarioca Crisis, 1965; The Mariel Boatlift,
1980; and The August 1994 Balseros Crisis. The Mariel Boatlift was 'the big one' : 125,000 Cubans.
Dwarfed by Erdogan. A million in Germany alone.
I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with
the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as
gatekeepers.
The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey,
the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course.
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
"... "WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies." ..."
"... The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for the Syria disaster years ago. ..."
Saudi Arabia is in dire trouble today as the outcry over recent executions mounts. The execution
of Shia Sheikh Nimr Baqr al-Nimr in the most brutal day of executions in the country in three
decades has now sparked violence across the region. If Saudi Arabia is destabilized, the Middle
East could easily turn into a bloodbath of biblical proportions. This begs the big question, "What
is really behind these apparently symbolic executions?" [...]
[...] In the Shadow of Machiavelli
The best clue as to "who stands behind" this new Saudi-Iran crisis comes to us from the Washington
Post. For anyone still unaware, this Amazon owned media outlet is the perfect barometer of what
is NOT true in the world of international affairs these days. Using "reverse news" psychology
here, the article by Karen DeYoung tells us all we need to know about al-Nimr's execution. If
you will allow me this quote:
"Obama administration officials expressed deep concern Sunday that the abrupt escalation
of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have repercussions extending to the fight against
the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the diplomatic efforts to end Syria's civil war, and wider
efforts to bring stability to the Middle East."
Citing unnamed officials in Barack Obama's administration has become the guiding principle
of corporate media in America these last few years, and the Washington Post misdirects have never
been more transparent than today. This piece is misleading, supportive of Saudi and US disruption
in the region, and anti-Iranian to the extreme. The author continues using another source who
is a "authorized to convey Saudi thinking on the condition of anonymity," if you can imagine such
a conveyance. According to the WP, Saudi Arabia is framed as the only nation "doing something",
and I quote:
"Tehran has thumbed its nose at the West again and again, continuing to sponsor terrorism
and launch ballistic missiles and no one is doing anything about it."
Then BAM! Steve Bezos' newspaper barks the real intent of this propaganda bit bringing Russia
into the fray with:
" Iran, along with Russia, is the leading backer of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a
member of a minority Shiite sect, and Riyadh views the civil war as part of Iran's fight for sectarian
dominance."
As I type this from our offices in Germany, US F-15 and F-16 fighters fly overhead in a continuous
stream from the US air base at Spangdahlem Air Base. I mention this only because 2 years ago we
seldom if ever heard fighter aircraft overhead. These days even locals wonder if the flyovers
have a purpose beyond intimidation, or at least some residents have expressed this to me personally.
The current undeclared war of resolve, it bears witnessing and a focus on all these events in
the Middle East. My point being, Riyadh's actions of the last few days are part of an overall
western strategy of unrest. If the Washington Post tells you Obama's White House is worried over
something, you can count on the Washington having been part of the cause of the event. In this
case we see the "never say die" war against Assad and Russia in the works. It is a crazy bit of
irony that WP's editor Karen DeYoung was once quoted as saying; "We are inevitably the mouthpiece
for whatever administration is in power."
Meanwhile, at the newspaper (The Wall Street Journal) owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch (who
has energy investments in the region) we have another indicative report, or should I say "counter
indicative?" Jay Solomon reports on the weeping sadness of Barack Obama that his non-existent
peace plan for Syria may be derailed by Riyhad's decision to sever ties with Iran. Within this
report the "real" mission of the Saudis, and Washington's current administration is revealed.
I'll rely on another quite to clue the reader. Referring to the John Kerry brokered "plan" the
Wall Street Journal writer inadvertently betrays the Obama administration with:
"Under the deal, Iran in the coming months is set to receive as much as $100 billion in
frozen oil revenues, which could be used to support its proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen."
To sum up here, the goal all along has been misdirect from Obama's team. The Iran deal, the
parlaying at various peace accords, all the State Department's efforts have been designed to frame
the United States as peace loving, with the teddy bear John Kerry as a sort of Mother Teresa of
détente. Has anyone noticed yet how every deal the man makes goes south in the end? Now Iran coming
out of decades of useless sanctions is on the rocks, as was planned so it appears. The WSJ piece
further implicates (by inaccuracy) the White House's Machiavellian strategies with.
" As the conflict deepened over the weekend, with Saudi Arabia officially severing ties with
Iran, U.S. officials expressed skepticism over how much influence Washington had in heading off
a conflict based on centuries-old religious divisions."
It is with this, and with the ad nauseam with which mainstream media parrots State Department
rhetoric we find the true backers of terrorism and strife in the Middle East. The statement misleads
readers into believing the situation in the Middle East is "out of the control" of Obama and Washington,
when the reverse is absolutely true. The story goes on to plant the seed of military support for
Saudi Arabia should the situation escalate, which it is certain to with the help of the lame duck
Obama.
When all is said and done, Nimr Baqr al-Nimr was a man of peaceful advocacy for the people
of his belief and his region of Saudi Arabia. There is literally no proof to the contrary, yet
he was summarily executed by a regime notorious for beheading its citizens. The Unites States
of America has not only backed this regime, but has aligned herself in an auspicious manner over
the years essentially using the Saudis as a vassal for regional control. This section of a WikiLeaks
cable damns the Saudis for helping create the mess in Syria and elsewhere:
"The USG engages regularly with the Saudi Government on terrorist financing. The establishment
in 2008 of a Treasury attache office presence in Riyadh contributes to robust interaction and
information sharing on the issue. Despite this presence, however, more needs to be done since
Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other
terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi
sources, often during Hajj and Ramadan. In contrast to its increasingly aggressive efforts to
disrupt al-Qa'ida's access to funding from Saudi sources, Riyadh has taken only limited action
to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with
al-Qa'ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Revelations Verse 19:11
The cable is from the US State Department to various offices of the Saudi government, that
of the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. This cable, along with dozens of other revelations about the backers
of terror in the world, leaves no room for ambiguity. But what's far more disturbing is the way
Washington, London and to a lesser extent Brussels are portraying current unrest as some type
of religious war. The Christian-Jew-Muslim aspects of these crises are being used to hide the
real cause of corporate governments supplanting rights and freedoms. This is a larger argument,
but the correct one at this stage. What the world suffers from now is a hell bent effort by the
godless of the world (elite bankers) to once again spark crusades for the purposes of strategy
and profit. Most people reading this fully understand this, even though the exact culprits may
be obscure.
The summary of this story is fairly easy to parlay. Saudi Arabia just made a play for the neocons
in Washington, the bankers in London, and for the Tel Aviv instigators who have so far remained
in the shadows in all this. They created a martyr who may well serve their utterly evil needs,
to set the world on fire one more time. Let me leave you with the most damning quote I have yet
found. It is from WikiLeaks, and implicates the Obama and previous US administrations:
"WikiLeaks cables (see below) show that the US has been tracking, and exploiting, the rise
of ISIS since 2006, when the organisation first appeared in Iraq as a direct result of the Bush-Blair
invasion. Like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, ISIS are the mutations of a western state terror dispensed
by a venal imperial elite undeterred by the consequences of actions taken at great remove in distance
and culture. Their culpability is unmentionable in "our" societies."
Make no mistake here, America and Britain created this mess in the world, with the help of
profiting allies like Saudi Arabia.
The WikiLeaks revelations tell of former French Foreign Minister
Roland Dumas' statements on this too. What he revealed is that Britain basically made plans for
the Syria disaster years ago.
What we are witnessing is a last ditch effort to counter Vladimir
Putin's play in the region, and to either win a new Syria partitioning, or else burn the deserts
in total.
This is a world war in the making, and the man on the pale horse seems evident now,
the leader of the faithful and true. God help us all.
Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis - as b pointed out early
on when he noted that it fuels calls that
"something must be done!"
about Assad/Syria.
"For the first time in my political career I have heard politicians openly declaring that the
refugees heading to Europe are their method of getting (us) [the EU] to act a certain way,"
Can't disagree with this message from the Iranian Foreign Minister..
"Saudi Arabia can either continue supporting extremist terrorists and promoting
sectarian hatred, or it can opt for good neighborliness and play a constructive role
in promoting regional stability, however; Iran hopes that Saudi Arabia will be
persuaded to heed the call of reason,"
Zarif said that there are indications that some in Saudi Arabia are on a mission
to drag the entire region to conflict; fearing that removal of the smokescreen of the
manufactured Iranian nuclear threat would expose the real global threat posed by
extremists and their sponsors, according to IRNA.
The Iranian foreign minister recalled that those involved in extremist carnage and
most members of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIL and Al-Nusra Front being either Saudi
nationals, or otherwise brainwashed by petro-financed demagogues, who have promoted
an anti-Islamic message of hatred, exclusion and sectarianism across the globe for
decades.
"... The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain: ..."
"... countries, groups, that have a socialistic bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.) ..."
"... Energy rich countries who wont open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or wont permit US type banking system in their country, or arent subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq) ..."
Dan at 2.
There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness
The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:
those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or
espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national
(e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor
of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model,
abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus
turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't
permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points
(ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ
sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal
repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try
for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums
of money, such as in the banking sector.
Countries it pretends to admire who are secretely dominated by them and only escape ostracim,
sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden
and the Netherlands come to mind.
Other.
That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it
is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy,
capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disaproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests,
corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production
and selling which needs war, and on and on.
"... Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides. ..."
"... The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is. ..."
"... But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil… ..."
"... From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's. ..."
"... That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar. ..."
"... now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part. ..."
There is a strong bias against neutrality in our foreign policy debates. Not taking sides in this
or that conflict is rarely taken seriously as an appropriate response. Instead of asking whether
the U.S. should even take a side, it is taken for granted that the U.S. "must" choose one or the
other, and the main debate concerns only how much and what kind of support to provide. This is a
recurring problem in debating the proper response to conflicts inside countries as well as rivalries
between them. One reason for this is that U.S. interests and the interests of another state or faction
within a state are conflated from the beginning, and this is done to make it much more difficult
to recognize that the U.S. doesn't actually have interests in the conflict or rivalry in question.
Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to
help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise
pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder
to advocate against taking sides.
Today's Fareed Zakaria
column
shows how difficult it is for most pundits to do this. Even when arguing for steering
clear of regional sectarian rivalry, Zakaria can't avoid endorsing U.S. support for the Saudis:
In general, the United States should support Saudi Arabia in resisting Iran's encroachments
in the region, but it should not take sides in the broader sectarian struggle.
But it is not possible to support an overtly sectarian Saudi government in its preoccupation with
opposing Iranian influence without being pulled into the "broader sectarian struggle," in no small
part because the Saudis define their resistance to Iran's supposed "encroachments" in terms of religious
sect. The Saudis falsely claim that their war on Yemen is aimed at "resisting Iran's encroachments,"
and the U.S. has been supporting their campaign from the start, and in so doing it is helping to
fuel sectarian hatreds in Yemen and beyond. Zakaria correctly recognizes the pitfalls of being pulled
into sectarian conflicts in the region, but won't acknowledge that the U.S. is caught up in them
because of the support it provides to sectarian governments. He specifically mentions the growing
sectarianism in Yemen, but doesn't make the connection with U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention
there. Despite explicitly saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sides in "someone else's civil war,"
he approves of doing just that by accepting that the U.S. should keep supporting the Saudis.
One of the most common arguments for siding with the Saudis in their hostility towards Iran is
that they are our "ally," and therefore the U.S. should automatically support the position of its
"ally." This overlooks that the U.S. has no treaty obligations to the kingdom, and ignores that the
so-called "ally" does virtually nothing for us.
The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort
of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide
to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose
not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the
relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge
theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship
(if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is.
Prof. Woland,
January 8, 2016 at 1:56 pm
But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because
it is always good vs. evil…
Ian G.,
January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm
I pull my hair out when seemingly reasonable people like Zakaria don't even bother asking why
Saudi Arabia is our "ally".
From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil
flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position,
Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism,
and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be
Iran's.
That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially
when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat.
jamie,
January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm
From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could
always turn the Iranian spigots on?
Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific,
Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars,
requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran
was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar.
There's also very little question of Saudi regime's oil resources falling in the hands of populist
or democratic elements that might use oil to overtly embarrass or destabilize the United States
- the Saudi's bleed us dry, but subtlety and in a way that US voters are unlikely to punish their
leaders for.
Jon Lester,
January 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm
American neutrality might be the very thing needed to keep the conflict contained, and
now
would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll
be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational
mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part.
"... The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be sharply critical of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war? ..."
"... I doubt that we will hear any sharply critical condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials. ..."
"... In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations . ..."
"... That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East. ..."
"... U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist. ..."
"... The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next. ..."
"... The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obamas presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the mans character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nations prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told. ..."
"... The neo-cons are the establishments political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an enemy of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets. ..."
"... Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIAs clandestine/black operations branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, revolution, with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ( I think Yats is the guy ) who would become the facade of the nazi takeover. ..."
The "western" public,
especially in Europe
, now prefers good relations with Iran over relations with Saudi Arabia.
It is a natural development when one considers that jihadi terrorism is a
real concern
and that the
people involved in most international terrorist incidents follow variants of the Saudi spread Wahhabi
ideology.
This is now developing into a problem for the U.S. administration. Saudi Arabia, as other Gulf
statelets, is a U.S. client state. Without U.S. support it would have ceased to exist a long time
ago. The Saudis are made to pay for U.S. protection by buying overpriced U.S. weapon systems for
tens of billion dollars per year. They also finance joint projects like the war against the Soviets
in Afghanistan and currently the U.S. regime change war on Syria.
U.S. relation with Iran have become somewhat better due to the nuclear deal. But the Islamic Republic
of Iran will never be a U.S. client state. Seen from the perspective of the global strategic competition
it is in the same camp as the U.S. foes Russia and China. Unless the U.S. ceases to strive for global
dominance it will continue to support its proxies on the western side of the Persian Gulf rather
then the Iranians of the eastern side.
The changed public view, very much visible after the recent Saudi execution of Nimr Baqr al-Nimr,
necessitates to mask the real U.S. position by claiming that it is opposed to Saudi Arabian policies.
The stenographers in U.S. media are always willing to help their government when such a cover up
for a shoddy position is needed.
In the Washington Post Karen De Young supports the administration by
providing
this lie:
The United States has long joined international human rights organizations and other Western
governments in criticizing Saudi human rights abuses ..
Her colleague David Sanger at the New York Times is
debunks
that nonsense point with a rare reference to reality:
The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in
human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed
its elite to fund Islamic extremists.
Sanger then replaces the "U.S. supports human-rights in Saudi Arabia" lie with another blatant
one:
the administration has [..] been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen
The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support,
targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its
navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be "sharply critical"
of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war?
Since Sunday there have been at least 11 Saudi air attacks on Yemen's capital Sanaa. Last night
another wedding hall, the Commerce Chamber and the AlNoor Centre for the Blind were
destroyed
by U.S. provided Saudi bombs.
I doubt that we will hear any "sharply critical"
condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials.
In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is
in its geopolitical interest
. Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical
goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria
against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other
concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given
by the Saudis
to U.S.
and UK
politicians as well as
for public relations
.
The New York Times editors
falsely
claim
there is no choice for the U.S. other then to do what it does:
The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European
Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria.
Washington has no
choice
but to deal with regimes like those in Tehran [..] or in Riyadh to combat the
clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists or to search for solutions to massively
destabilizing conflicts like the Syrian civil war.
That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least
since 2006
. The U.S. is enabling "the clear
and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists" through its
alliance with al-Qaeda
.
It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere
to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the
Middle East.
U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the
Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is
the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist.
"The Western public now prefers good relations w/ Iran over relations w/ Saudi Arabia" I can't
speak for everyone in the West but that is my sentiments exactly. Iran has been the center of
deep state propaganda for so long that we have failed to realize - the Saudi's are more in need
of a regime change then anyone in that region. Ultimately, screw them all, except for Syria -
i'll never forget what Saudi Arabia and Turkey / western cohorts did to Syria - I hope it comes
back to nest in Saudi Arabia..
Pleased that you included that excellent link from the Intercept, this from 'rrheard' in the
comments section, it was so good I do hope he does not mind me posting part of it here. "America's
foreign policy relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on exactly two things historically–Saudi's
willingness to be a US proxy against communism in the region and the oil and weapons trade.
And that says all you need to know about America's moral compass as well. I love the idea of
my country, and absolutely detest what its leaders have done since WWII in service if its elites
perceived "interests". Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that America's foreign policy over the
last 60 years has nothing to do with the "best interests" of the American people, humanitarianism,
human rights or the "interests" of any other people on the planet despite the cradle to grave
propaganda apparatus in America that has a significant majority of American's believing such transparent
twaddle as "American exceptionalism" or "we are always well intentioned, we just make mistakes"
when it comes to the mass slaughter of non-Americans all over the globe.
There hardly a fucking dictator on the planet that hasn't been backed by the American government
and its business elites, politically and/or economically, so long as they are pliant when it comes
to towing the line on America's "interests"."
tom
| Jan 5, 2016 2:12:32 PM | 10
Agree with B, except with popular opinion. Most of the Western public so politically unprincipled
and cowardly that they can be swayed quite easily to western imperial propaganda. It's just a
matter of when the media turned on the hate/fear switch up to 2/10.
Just look at the reminder in Congo genocide, with the people couldn't give a fuck, and is one
of the worst genocides since World War II. Or the Rwandan genocide, with the propaganda that turned
most of the victims into the guilty party and then lead genocidedal maniac - Paul Kagame, as the
"sympathetic" president -now for life - thanks to the evil US empires evil media.
Blaming the Russians for the plane crash over Ukraine, gas attacks blamed on Assad. And then
you can count thousands of examples where people in the west vote or support policies that are
against their own health, social and political interests.
No, most Western people are willing to place the jackboot gladly under their neck, till they realise
it's too late.
Jen
| Jan 5, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 15
To Dan @2 and Jackrabbit @5:
In an odd way, you are both right.
The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested
in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from
one presidential administration to the next.
Think of the US government as several psychopaths working together. Psychopaths basically only
care about looking out for No 1. If two or more psychopaths discover that working together allows
them to fulfill their individual goals quicker than if they worked separately, then they'll co-operate.
The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama
could say a great deal about the style of Obama's presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve
in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular
distinction and flavour that represent the man's character and personality? I submit not much
at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US)
is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members
of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with
her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February
2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nation's prime minister. I might also
suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told.
In short, if the oil lobby, the pro-Israeli lobby, other industry and country lobbies in the
US government find that their interests coincide, they'll work as one through Congress and the
various federal government departments.
harry law
| Jan 5, 2016 3:42:05 PM | 19
Lysias@18 Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' he goes on, "That's phase one - to
go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us. And the question is, at
what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?"
This is exactly what the Mafia say to their victims.
Oui
| Jan 5, 2016 4:13:45 PM | 21
Trump speaks the lingo of the House of Saud, well at least of Prince Bandar, now deposed of
his key role to influence the West. Wasn't it Bandar who offered a terror free Sochi games for
Assad's head on a platter. Putin must have calmly replied if any harm comes to Russia in the period
of the Olympic Winter games, Saudi Arabia may just lose one of it's cities.
Blair and now Cameron deal with Saudi Arabia to exchange modern weapons for protection from
AQ terror in the UK. It's the British (and French) who were willing to join Obama in bombing Assad's
Syria in September 2013. Now it's the British and Americans who offer intelligence and logistic
support to KSA and the GCC allies in bombing Yemen back to deeper medieval times. AQAP will use
this to their advantage.
The DC rag WP is really craving for a good, big sectarian regional war in ME, I am afraid they
are not going to get it, Iranian have been acting responsibly not letting US, Israel, and their
Arab insecure clientele wishes come
Through. Never the less WP editors would want their readers believe Iranian protestors meant
to attack a SUNNI embassy, and not the Embassy of Saudi Arabia who was responsible for executed
an innocent Shia high clergy.
"The execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia has sparked a furor
in the Middle East along sectarian lines. In Iran, the regional Shiite superpower, the Sunni
embassy was ransacked and burned."
Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement
Very good points, Oui.
The neo-cons are the establishment's political death-squads, the
sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to
eliminate anyone considered an "enemy" of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets.
Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIA's "clandestine/black operations" branch, working
together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the
neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been
actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, "revolution,"
with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ("I think Yats is the guy") who would
become the facade of the nazi takeover.
Syria, on the other hand, was a hard nut to crack, the neo-cons and the CIA made severe mistakes
underestimating Assad and the resistance of the Syrian people. US/UK/NATO were announcing the
fall of Assad every other day, and while many of those Western "leaders" are gone, Assad has survived
all their ill-predictions. Neo-cons/CIA are fuming at the mouth constantly looking for a way to
reverse their losses, and starting a little war between KSA-Iran is not such a bad idea, neo-cons
swim like fish in chaos.
They are getting set for another defeat by old Persian wisdom.
Dan at 2.
There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness
The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind
the curtain:
those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty
powerless
countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their
citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*,
anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath
party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on
differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this
goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers,
blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels
about abortion, etc.
Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela),
or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on
a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long
while (ex. Iraq)
Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human
trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned
murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are
generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be
allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines,
big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
Countries it pretends to admire who are secretly dominated by them and only
escape ostracism, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a
controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
Other.
That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I
agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria,
racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disapproval, empty rage,
power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and
blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war,
and on and on.
"... Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind! ..."
"... Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel safe . ..."
"... All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president ..."
"... I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance. ..."
"... the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the angry white guy vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. ..."
"... . Youd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. ..."
"... You may know that some interpretations of the Pandoras Box myth have the release of Hope at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge. ..."
"... Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame obstructionist Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large. ..."
"... Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little good things he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists. ..."
"... Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it. ..."
"... Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses ..."
"... TPP is the big tell for Obama. Hes fighting for that like nothing else. ..."
"... ACA belongs in the Failures column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the Central Banks column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet. ..."
"... Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as diplomacy ..."
"... Obama wins my coveted Worst_President_Ever award ..."
"... Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? Cmon people…we know a good president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum. ..."
"... I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: I think hes a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But hes got a passable jump shot, so theres that . ..."
"... Its hard to imagine anyone whos a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust. ..."
"... Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincolns footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers power, Obama is the agent of corporate power. ..."
"... The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you. ..."
"... Obama doesnt care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth. ..."
"... Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. ..."
"... I dont believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is ..."
"... I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. ..."
"... Quite simply, I think Obama isnt bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. ..."
"... he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified smart people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do. ..."
"... I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. ..."
"... I think hes ultimately just plain cynical. ..."
"... I recall seeing the German film Mephisto, with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauers artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. ..."
"... Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. ..."
"... I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didnt feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the right philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. ..."
"... in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow ..."
"... he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region. ..."
"... He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilarys idiotic tilt to the Pacific policy which is stupidly tin eared about Chinas genuine geopolitical concerns. ..."
"... He could have said no to the Saudis idiotic attack on Yemen. ..."
"... He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russias genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin. ..."
"... He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists). ..."
"... These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didnt do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic. ..."
"... PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teachers pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind. ..."
"... Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. ..."
"... Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962). – Joe Firestone ..."
"... incompletes ..."
"... I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. ..."
"... I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. ..."
"... There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesnt call. Not even colleagues in his own party. ..."
"... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
"... He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power. ..."
"... I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. ..."
"... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
"... failing upwards has been part of Barrys compensation package. ..."
"... Its part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president… ..."
"... all of Bubbas charisma couldnt overcome Barrys shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday. ..."
"... some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist ..."
"... A true narcissist wouldnt be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists dont back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do. ..."
"... Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with narcissistic rage. ..."
"... Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissists self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972. ..."
"... Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin. ..."
"... I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required. ..."
"... Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car– Drone bomb Obamas kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others and Hillary and Barack are war criminals . ..."
"... America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. ..."
"... Concussions – USA ..."
"... Concussions – USA ..."
"... He is the designated spokesmodel for the love me Im a liberal wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the proud to be an asshole wing) ..."
"... Obamas disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead theyre doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They dont seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them. ..."
"... Oh, and another tell that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase Russias land grab in Ukraine. No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a grab . ..."
"... Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy. ..."
"... In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ..."
"... I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didnt point out the snipers and hand him a script. ..."
"... Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for. ..."
"... Obama is best understood as a CIA project since his early teens. hes been groomed ..."
"... I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history. ..."
"... TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. Thats more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and its not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil. By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party. ..."
If I was passing out grades, with the TPP project, Obama gets a big fat F-
Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse
than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind!
Jill Stein's got my vote if Uncle Bernie isn't on the ticket! In my humbe opinion of course!
Almost all commentary in the US mass media (which Alternet is on the fringes of) has as basic
assumptions two memes: "compared to the Republicans" and "in the real world." I think if we want
to be honest that we must say compared to a President Cruz or President Santorum, Obama looks
fairly good. And as the commenter notes about Paris, in "the real world" tens of millions of Americans
take it for granted that the job of the President is to "keep us safe" by slaughtering foreigners
in sufficient numbers so that they fear us.
Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under
the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is
not sufficient to make many feel "safe".
Here, our criteria are different. We have both a broader picture of what is happening, what
was and is possible (we could be wrong about the extent of what's possible, but that's another
argument), and what the potential options are.
All these factors lead us to see Obama as a
dubious or awful president
(opinions differ, even around here). Objectively,
I think most
of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what
we see as his deliberate malfeasance.
On a personal note, all this horror is affecting me personally and sending me into flights
of rage. This also hurts
the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the "angry white
guy" vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect.
I know that global warming and
gun violence have me so upset that my own judgment is at times distorted, although I can't have
much truck with anyone who isn't deeply upset by these phenomena. And the old academic stance
of radical objectivity and dispassion really can be a pose and socially sterile–leadership and
mobilizing people is rarely all about dispassionate objectivity and pulling one's punches with
neutral language. It all leaves me baffled as to the way ahead.
Jim Levy: An excellent comment. As always, you argue carefully and even use unfashionable words
like "dispassionate." (And how many blogs these days have commenters who might use the word "probity?")
On a personal note: I don't believe in hope, which is a theological virtue. By and large, it
serves Christian eschatology, which is why I became suspicious of the decidedly un-religious Obama
and his use of it. (Not right away. It took me till after the first inauguration and the Cabinet
of re-treads.) And I am not persuaded the arc of history bends toward justice in the United States
of America, which may be what makes the country exceptional. American crassness has defeated even
its greatest prophets, not just Martin Luther King but Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams,
and Sinclair Lewis.
Yesterday, I had an open house to begin the year, and we touched on insurance. Many of my friends
are free lances or self-employed owners of small businesses. We touched on what has happened here
in Illinois, collectively blanched, and then discussed the fact that after 19 years of free lance
I took a job. It is a plum job, and it has health benefits. ACA is going to grind down the middle
class, and the happy talk of extended coverage doesn't talk about the crappiness, the insulting
crappiness, of the policies.
I suspect that major change with regard to global warming, peace, and conversion to a new economy
will not come from the United States
. You'd think that a nation that adores England would note
how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation
well into the 1960s.
So the solutions are going to come from smaller, odder places, just as mammals
were a small and odd group when they arose, years ago. Portugal is intriguing, as is Norway. Sweden
is trying in ways that the U.S. just won't do. And even Japan changes in remarkable ways. And
I would never rule out Brazil.
Recommended reading: It may be the moment for Cavafy, who knew about decadent societies and
the feeling of loss. See "Waiting for the Barbarians" and "Ithaca."
You may know that some interpretations of the Pandora's Box myth have the release of "Hope"
at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge.
Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free
pass to blame "obstructionist" Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly
mediocre status quo writ large.
You got it.
Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little "good things" he does (Iran
negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just
palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists.
Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities
because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it.
If they were serious, the
Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation
with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses
.
It's the lack of good jobs that is causing the implosion of society. And that's on Obama and the
Democrats who didn't turn things around when they had the chance.
TPP is the big tell for Obama. He's fighting for that like nothing else.
All of the "Incompletes" belong in the "Failures" column. And the "Successes"?
ACA belongs
in the "Failures" column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands
single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the "Central Banks" column, they put $13T
on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet.
Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as "diplomacy"
, recall
that Jimmy Carter went 4 whole years without a single shot fired in anger, now THAT's diplomacy.
And please point me to one single solitary foreign policy "success", I suppose you'd have to mention
Cuba and Iran, Cuba was a gimme and it's far from clear that the Iran rapprochement has succeeded
and is a net "win" for the US given the witches brew of the ME.
Obama wins my coveted "Worst_President_Ever" award
, and yes I'm counting Andrew Johnson and
Millard Fillmore. He simply normalized everything we hated about Bush, from Permanent War to unbridled corporo-fascism to a free pass for Wall St to unlimited spying that would make the Stasi drool.
And no mention of the War on Whistleblowers.
Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal
Versailles-style vacations? C'mon people…we know a "good" president when we see one, or even a
marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum.
I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: "I think he's
a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But he's got a passable jump
shot, so there's that".
Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincoln's footsteps. However, the closest analogy
is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers' power was to appease it, just like Obama
appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned
out to be the agent of the slavers' power, Obama is the agent of corporate power.
The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people
hope, they come out to vote for you.
Especially at a time of economic crisis. But then when you deliver nothing for the largest
block of voters, you quickly disenfranchise them and they either change their vote or don't bother
to vote at all. The Senatorial elections in Massachusetts were a good barometer for Obama's quick
loss of appeal. We had a tightly contested race between our former Attorney General, Martha Coakley,
and Scott Brown for senate. Coakley was an awful candidate who was a somewhat effective AG, but
had no personality or desire to run a strong campaign. Scott Brown was a fluff candidate who had
been a local state representative.
When the race was clearly close due to the democrats failed policy and the potential for Scott
Brown to be a deciding vote against Obamacare, Obama himself came and stumped for Coakley. A sitting
president who had won an overwhelming majority of the vote in Massachusetts could do little to
bring up Coakley's flagging campaign.
Scott Brown was elected and had a largely feckless few years in office. Now look who sits in
that Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren, who one could say has stood up to Obama's largest policies
and is by no means a democratic insider. So this is to say that most democrats or temporary Obama
supporters were quickly disillusioned when the president they got didn't match the marketing promises
they received on TV. But
Obama doesn't care about building a majority any more than the Clintons
did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth.
Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode.
The "failures and incompletes" remind
me of GWB's aweshucks moments. Iran needs to be moved from the Big Successes category to the aweshucks
column now. Because, aweshucks, furry faced crazy mullahs. If only they were more like bankers,
corporate America and the security state – where we could control them better?
A few months ago on a thread here I asked generally what people thought actually motivated
Obama – what makes him tick as a person – he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton, or a captive
of his upbringing like Bush. I got some really interesting answers, its a pity I can't find them
now.
I don't believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is
– there
is enough evidence from the first 2 years or so of his presidency that he was genuinely trying
to do the right thing by the economy and in the Middle East, but the speed with which he retreated
into an establishment shell at the first sign of trouble was remarkable and disturbing. I suspect
that for someone thought of as a 'thinker', he seems to have a lack of real self awareness.
I'm less cynical than some about his motives with Obamacare, drones and TPP.
I think Obama
is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes.
I've met very educated, progressive-minded
people, who will defend strongly some very regressive policies on the basis that 'yes, they are
not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction, anything else is not politically feasible'.
And yes, I used to think like that (NC being one of my big educators). It sounds pretentious to
say people like that are not 'enlightened' yet, but to an extent it is true. It took me many years
to shake off the assumptions of my own education (conservative) and upbringing (conservative).
Quite simply, I think Obama isn't bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise
is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise
that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive
assumptions.
You can see it in his pre-presidential writings –
he genuinely believes deep in his
guts that if the self-identified 'smart' people have a consensus, then its the right thing to
do.
But back to the point – I agree with Yves that this article is surprisingly generous to Obama,
and given that it comes from the left, it shows that his natural charm works even on people who
should know better.
I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama
has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly
stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing
things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even
worse, in a much more favourable political environment.
I'm particularly horrified at his supposed
environmentalism – he has done absolutely nothing that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming
into doing. I believe that deep down he has a natural distaste for 'regular folks'. In theory
he wants to help them, but he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of
people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped
themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.
Yet, I do think Obama is quite bright, with a subtle wit and a profound understanding of oppression.
I read parts of one of his books, and his poetic way of exploring how the poor on Chicago's South
side live was truly moving. Which makes his transition to the dark side even more troubling.
That's why
I think he's ultimately just plain cynical.
What makes him tick? He's one of the
most powerful men in the world, and he has plenty of enablers in the "intelligentsia" and on media
outlets like NPR and the New York Times to convince him that he's some sort of great compromiser,
a martyr for the Middle Path. I really do think Obama thinks he's just so damn reasonable, if
only he didn't have to content with Congress and "bitter working class people." Ha. You're right,
when he had both houses, he didn't exactly push for Wall Street prosecutions and regulations,
did he? But why would he invest emotionally in that version of himself, which is the highly unflattering
portrait of somebody who sold his soul?
After awhile, you buy into the narrative which both enables, and is flattering, to you. And
I don't think brilliance makes you immune to that, not when you have access to all of that power.
The mind is a flexible thing, and even smart people can just create new stories which are validating.
I recall seeing the German film "Mephisto," with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's artist
was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial
to his career.
I wouldn't underestimate what access to power and money can do. I suspect
that Alexis Tsipras wanted to sincerely help his fellow Greeks out of economic devastation. However,
the Troika has way more goodies to give him, than Greece ever could. So, why wouldn't he be seduced?
Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images
of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances
with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the
great droner.
To me, his chilling asides (like droning rivals to his daughter's favourite
pop group, sharing his contempt for the angry poors, or his story about decrepit world leaders
peeing themselves) reveal somebody who has lost touch with his humanity and has become dangerously
self-satisfied. Jerry Seinfeld shared that "power corrupts." Did Obama recognize himself in that
equation? Does he even care anymore? Either way, he has a very lucrative future career in speeches
and publishing, so I think he'll be just fine. Leave it to the plebes, those pesky consciences.
@inverness, I think you are generally right about that.
I found part of his writing quite moving,
but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didn't feel quite right.
Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote
and study the 'right' philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post
grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices.
But I've always suspected this was instinctual rather than calculated with Obama, but its hard
to be sure. But one thing that immediately struck me when I was reading his books was his huge
lack of curiosity about economics and science – there was nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate
he gave any thought whatever to those subjects.
I do think that he (along with his close advisors) see themselves as 'the grown-ups in the
room' and bulwarks against 'the crazies'. Supporting drone strikes can be seen as 'grown up' policy
when you are constantly dealing with hawks. But
in his foreign affairs his understanding has
always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow
. As an obvious example where he could have made
a very real difference without too much political issues, he could have reached out more to progressive
governments in South and Central America, but
he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook
work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the
region.
He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilary's idiotic "tilt to the
Pacific' policy which is stupidly tin eared about China's genuine geopolitical concerns.
He could have said 'no' to the Saudi's idiotic attack on Yemen.
He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russia's genuine
local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin.
He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States
support for Islamacists).
These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost,
but he didn't do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than
someone who is a complete cynic.
PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the
teacher's pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates
his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind.
Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding,
and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or
in Washington. He certainly lacks the iconoclastic/rebellious streak which you see in brilliant
minds like Noam Chomsky, unless he's disciplined enough to keep that under wraps for opportunistic
reasons.
Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness,
breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether
in academia or in Washington.
"Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms
is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980;
Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential
and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society,
and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation
of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective
on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets
and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks
associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such
participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the
consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring
social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen
as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that
the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught
at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication
that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different
from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962)." – Joe Firestone
Skippy…. a product of environmental conditioning which was mentored in the early stages of
political – life – by where the currant paradigm could be extended and advanced.
Instead, one of his earliest initiatives – and remember, this marks the use of his earliest
political capital in May 2009 – indefinite detention. I was beyond horrified and have regretted
voting for him since that day.
Or siding with the telecoms sanctioning surveillance the first week he was official. Or Summers
and Geithner. Or the great O-Care insurance sell out. Or pretending he was going after the banksters.
Or Fracking. Or, Or, Or.
By the way, "The Great Droner' by one of the commenters above is genius. Certainly applies
in a multitude of ways.
Notice your litany of or, or, or-s exemplify how nearly all of the so-called
incompletes
are actually failures (although we can count Congress and Senate as whole
class
failures).
I couldn't even read about the so-called economic
recovery
and bank bailouts by holding
my nose. NC readers would need Dramamine (polite way if saying it).
Nevertheless, I have had a few dreams about informal meetings with Bho, and while i seem to
have tried to give him some guidance, he was always charming and amicable…maybe simple good manners
is enough to score with excellence.
PK and Inverness: Astute comments, very thought provoking.
I recall a profile of Obama in the
New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background.
I believe, though, that the writer was referring to ceremonial kingship. Obama as embodying a
symbolic kind of power.
I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others.
Surely, the video-kill of Osama bin Laden is detached (and immoral, but let's not go there yet)–especially
publishing photos of the control room. This detachment evidently continues into retail politics.
If he isn't giving a grand speech, he doesn't want to have to shake hands.
There have been repeated
complaints from congressional reps that he doesn't call. Not even colleagues in his own party.
The detachment devolves into a certain designed lack of excellence.
He may be competitive,
like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done.
The endless droning about
his background as a professor of constitutional law (it's an article of faith among his fan club)
is belied by his policies (Guantanamo, drone killings, the extrajudicial killing and disposal
of OBL).
Yet he was so detached as a con law prof that he neglected to publish articles or books
about the U.S. Constitution. Who did he influence? No one is ever quoted as saying that the class
was good or that Obama has any kind of constitutional theories. Again, he's the Javanese prince,
ceremonial, detached, waiting to rule. He's like an ever-shiny-and-new M.B.A.
He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has
the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment
is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences
of wielding power.
I owe Geraldine Ferraro an apology–isn't she the one who was hushed for saying something like,
So he gave one good speech? And the whole kerfuffle about the location of the Obama library, with
the many sites? Isn't the presidential library supposed to be at the person's "home," and does
Obama have a home?
I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush
seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness
to socialize.
When Europeans, in particular Germans, find you too reserved…this also speaks
to your theory of detachment, albeit on a social level.
"He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things
done."
Yet, like many business people,
failing upwards has been part of Barry's compensation
package.
It's part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to
come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president…
Clinton's natural skill has been his adept, and presumably disingenuous ability to insightfully
focus and project empathy toward people, make them think he has their interests. Combined with
an ability to triangulate opportunity, this is why he is such a excellent grifter BClinton's naturally
ability to interact and ingratiate seems to me to be exactly the skillset BHO is utterly void
of.
I think IN GENERAL, one on one most people have a hard time not liking BClinton. It is what
it is.
OTOH, other than BHO's true believers, most of whom probably are of relatively modest means
other than the Hollywood liberal dilettante sort that want the superficial interaction w/ the
first half black POTUS, I don't really see BHO pulling off a BClinton scale payday..do you?
His narcissistic nature will inhibit that. So ok some BOD opportunity, maybe some foundation
at UofC?, but who in the serious old money crowd will want to engage him as a peer and for what
reason?
He kinda has the charisma of a POTUS version of Alberto Gonzalez.
You may be right, but then again
all of Bubba's charisma couldn't overcome Barry's shtick
in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall
Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday.
And FWIW, 'serious old money' looks like a pittance compared to the serious new money whose
bacon Barry saved. Besides, I don't really see Bubba rolling with the old fogies club, I see him
hobnobbing with Bono. In any case, we shall find out soon enough just how much Barry's service
is worth.
Serious old money is a misnomer indeed, makes that serious money, that said i doubt Bono lets
a nickel go too easily. Wall st looks to future opportunity will be yesterdays fish wrapper in
a year. On 2098, that's a pretty good surrogate for HRC charm. I just dont see BHO being a wheeler
dealer which in the end is about all BClinton has to offer anyone,
Still such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address
"such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address" Dude, this fact harshest my mellow every time.
Throw in the inevitability of His lie-Barry coming to the neighborhood and I completely crumple
into a bottomless pit of self-pity. The thought of the hordes of 0bots making the pilgrimage to
Hyde Park in the coming years is simply unbearable.
What motivates Obama? I'd venture his upbringing as a half black outsider licking the Windows
who now sees himself at the main house dining room table.
You're kidding, right? Of course
some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist
could be wrong, but "clearly isn't"–where does that come from? In fact I'll just quote you
later in your comment.
he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many
come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up
makes their contempt even stronger.
A true narcissist wouldn't be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic
he might actually have been a better president, narcissists don't back down at the first obstacle
the way he constantly seems to do.
To punish Narcissus, the avenging goddess Nemesis made Narcissus fall hopelessly in love
with his own beautiful face as he saw it reflected in a pool. As he gazed in fascination, unable
to remove himself from his image, he gradually pined away. At the place where his body had
lain grew a beautiful flower, honoring the name and memory of Narcissus.
Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with 'narcissistic rage'.
from wiki:
"Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to
a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase
used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost
interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.
Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden 'true self' has been revealed.
This may be the case when the narcissist has a fall from grace, such as when their hidden behaviors
or motivations are revealed or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury
is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.
Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild
irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…
Obama isn't just the object if the Obot devotion, he is the biggest Obot of them all.
Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any
particular plans beyond Presidentin'.
Universal health care was never an end goal for either President. Being put in the history
books as a bipartisan hero was their goal. Healthcare was a means to an end. They picked what
they perceived as the easiest path to what they could call change. Bill handed off responsibility
to his never elected wife with no relevant back ground in hopes no one would attack her. The difference
between Bill/Obama and other narcissists (even Bernie is full of himself. He thinks he can have
George Washington's old job) is they don't grasp the difference between quality and brand.
He has a place in the history books as "the first black president" nevermind that he was a
complete disaster. Next up we will have "the first woman president", same outcome (hopefully not
much worse, that would be difficult but given her politics and her backers she's already in the
runner-up spot for my "Worst_President_Ever" award..
I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill
Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and
staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training,
no numbers required.
As a professor of constitutional law, I would have guessed Obama would have at least been strong
on civil liberties, but he was not.
Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car–"Drone bomb Obama's kids, as he drone bombs the
kids of others" and "Hillary and Barack are war criminals".
Sorry if these are "too weak".
They are magnetic, so I can take them off when others are in the car with me–I worry about
being attacked by an enraged Prius driver here in "progressive" Ann Arbor, Michigan.
A long post could be done on the subject of American sports, football in particular, as self
mandated training wheels to our corresponding political duopoly;
America! Locked in Lovers
of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and
blind team loyalty to raw ignorance.
For short, we could call it,
Concussions – USA
.
The pluses this author attributes to a morally and ethically bankrupt individual who with overwhelming
shock and awe provided by the system described above,
Concussions – USA
, conned Americans
into making him president of their sometime democracy would simply dissolve into public ridicule
and laughter under any other system (unless it had America's big gun pointed right at it's head).
Reaction there is largely similar to that here: Obama is a failure on nearly every count, is
actually a conservative, and this "report card" is giving him too much of a pass. Encouraging!
Here's a representative comment from dave3137:
Oh, yes, and let's not forget the guy who stood by his Wall Street pals (Geithner, et al.)
and told the banksters "help me to help you," while letting "Main Street" drown in the crisis
they did NOT create. And let's not forget how this administration let people go because Breitbart
and Fox threw up a smokescreen. And let's not forget that this administration is trying desperately
to shove a "trade deal" (or three) down our throats that have almost zero advantages for ordinary
Americans. And let's not forget how this Administration's justice department failed to prosecute
ANY banksters but managed to exact a few minutes' worth of profits as "fines" - while bragging
these were "record-breaking." Oh, and remember how Obama spoke out so forcefully against the
"death panel" crap? And remember how "single payer" disappeared after big pharma had a White
House meeting? And remember ending "endless war"? Closing Guantanamo? And oh yeah, let's not
forget to give "credit" for "the most transparent administration in US history."
I don't consider Obamacare or our "economic" recovery to be successes unless, 1) you're rich
enough not to need Obamacare and 2) you're rich enough to benefit from the "economic" recovery.
Nobody else benefited aside from those using the Medicare expansion, not the middle class, and
most definitely not the poor.
Anybody who still votes Democratic based on "this is the best we can get" is admitting that
our democracy is broke and they are getting screwed. One of the required actions to fix our democracy
is to quit voting for the Democratic party based on that self defeating rational. I will vote
for Bernie, I will not vote for Hillary.
And I'm meeting quite a few Republicans who don't care for Hillary or Trump. Tells me that
the Sanders campaign has a huge opportunity to pick up votes.
You won't find a better entertainer than B.O. I think in the last week I saw references to
him hiking on some travel channel and also doing a segment with Jerry Seinfeld. Come on folks
he's giving America what it wants in it's screen captured environment
I'll never forget the time my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant and across from me was
a family or I at least assume it was a family of father, son and daughter. Teenage Son was playing
some game on a hand held device. Early twenty something daughter was texting on a smart phone.
Old school pop had his head tilted up and watching some show on the tv. I did not hear one word
uttered that entire time by the Screen family.
Obama knows we are a nation of screen watchers and being the entertainer that he is covers
the part exceptionally well. Although I have lost interest in watching his shtick anymore.
He is the designated spokesmodel for the "love me I'm a liberal" wing of the power duopoly
(as opposed to the "proud to be an asshole" wing)
, and as reward for staying on script he
gets to enjoy the considerable privileges of office–privileges that, according to plugged in commentators
like Pat Lang, he enjoys greatly.
Obama's only noteworthy accomplishment is providing the country with it's first African American
President and for that he will always deserve some credit. He himself may be a big phony, but
the pride this accomplishment has given to many black people isn't. One can also say that in a
long line of Presidential mediocrities Obama is merely the latest. Clearly it's our American system
that is deeply flawed and unable to cope with ever more serious problems.
Obama loves the limelight, but he's going on shows, not drawing the crowds himself.
Jerry Seinfeld isn't edgy or provocative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he can't
say no to the President, in a way a Carlin might, more mock the person to their face the way a
Colbert might if he were so motivated. I didn't watch the Seinfeld appearance, but I've heard
he is the nicest celebrity to meet.
Obama has recognized that the screens which once featured him are no longer tuned in and he's
searching for attention. Every Presidential candidate is inherently an anti-Obama candidate.
Yeah Yves I almost lost my lunch when I read this on Alternet yesterday. But I guess its par
for the course from the Dem/liberal establishment. For better or worse, Obama is their guy, just
like Hillary will be their girl and IOKIADDI (its OK if a Democrat does it). Neoliberal Heritage
Foundation/Romney health insurance "reform"? No problem! It's a "Big Success"! Turning a blind
eye to the largest, most destructive white-collar crime wave in our history? Well, he had "no
choice". "Foaming the runway" for the Wall St perps while screwing ordinary workers, distressed
homeowners and fraud victims? File it under 'saving the economy". Continuity (and worse) with
the Bush/Cheney foreign policy and "War on Terrah"? Well, that's just "keeping use safe from the
21st century boogey-men that fuel the MIC and the warfare consensus among the "serious people".
And I haven't even gotten to economic inequality remaining the same (or even worsening), the TPP,
persecution of whistle blowers, inaction of student loans, promotion of Arctic oil drilling while
pretending to be serious about climate change and on and on.
Obama's disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and
liberals. Instead they're doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the
form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues
will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the
disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland
governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds)
seems to be unshakeable. They don't seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans
or to be only slightly less worse than them.
Until the Dem/liberal establishment wakes up I'm afraid that not much will change. I think
its better to focus less on worrying about which establishment apparatchik will win the presidency
to changing the electoral process so that more voices are heard (opening up the debates) which
I hope will get more voters engaged in participating. That's the only way to take down the establishment
that produces empty suit infotainment candidates like Obama and Clinton (not to mention the GOP
troglodytes).
Seems we/U.S. has become content grading our leaders withing paradigms of mediocrity. Seems
like yesterday, the 2k election mess… recounts in Florida, Jeb's state troopers impeding black
voters getting to voting booths, the black box voting machines producing more votes in Repub precincts
then there were registered voters, Kathryn Harris (was Jeb "doing her"?) exerting "authority"
ignoring law….
Scotus' decision remanding consideration of Florida recounts back to Florida Supreme Court
was a calculated political decision to run out the legal clock, as several key SCOTUS members
have explicitly and implicitly acknowledged. And then Tom Delay's illegal thugs bused into Florida
on Tax Payer's dime, to thwart recounts.
BushCo and winger chest thumping but blind bravado intimidating their way to an election "victory"
demonstrated the same blindness they executed in their other disasters: ignoring Enron, the lies
behind Iraq, "Mushroom Clouds" and Israel's crimes levelling Lebanon, bailing out Banks while
U.S. economy crumbled….
This was biggest political wakeup call of my life, and now 15+ years in the rear view mirror.
AFAIC, the influences that allowed that to happen have gone unchanged. The U.S. tail still wags
the dog. The Bush years were an illusory horror, setting the U.S. and world back in almost unfathomable
ways.
Obama was elected with Bush approval ratings the lowest of ANY president in history. Many of
the hardest of hard right wingers I knew who treated their neighbors who criticized Bush as moral
enemies, had come around to grudingly acknowledge he was an…. asshole.
Obama had a mandate. He had an opportunity to change directions hugely had he the courage,
vision and grasp of reality many "hoped". Despite many capable economic advisers after he won
but before the inauguration, my heart sank when he announced nomination of Geithner: eg. someone
guaranteed to "fix" things by moving piles of money around, but not remove the people who stole
so much and deceived (literally) the world banking system. He instead gave them a get out of jail
card, and re-filled their bank accounts and "trusted" them to "fix" things.
This is my take on BO's "hope".
He has done little more then continue in Bush's worst foibles, and in many ways looks to me
like the world is worse off now then when he arrived. The ME mess has grown, and false premises
under lie our disastrous polices there. In both US media and current candidates, these delusions
seem to be accepted fact.
I take issue with author's (similarly assumed untruth) "Russia's land grab in Ukraine": that
utterly ignores all the other forces (US and Israel policy especially) at play there with no regard
for local interests: another example of "US Interests", no matter how selfish or destructive to
a given area… if expressed by the White House, it must be so.
WRT authors bullet points, I take issue with 2 items in particular:
– Energy: BO nominated the right guy (Dr. Chu): he knew the "territory" and was on the
cutting edge of the science… both from climate aspect and energy generation alternatives. Obama
ignored him, subjugated Chu's best advice to "more pressing" issues dominated by Geithner recommendation
("we can't afford energy until economy is fixed"). But there was no hope of "fix", and "kicking
the can" down the road on clean energy is the same as learning to "live with cancer". Chu left
quietly, no wonder.
– Embracing Diplomacy: I'm glad he did Cuba… didn't see that coming. Decades overdue. But…
despite our cascading disasters in ME, BO has learned little. Putin is the "threat", when evidence
is overwhelming Russia's efforts in Syria are turning the tide there. Biggest contributors
to Syria mess have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia (they've funded ISIS): US policy ignores this.
Putin has reached out… repeatedly. Love to see Putin and BO (or next president) together, in
public… for a week: open, frank discussions where the public can decide, not "policy makers"
and advisers looking for an advantage for their petroleum client. Seems backroom discussions
on Kerry's latest tour are moving towards some acknowledgment of this, but just as crooks on
wall street still run the show, we'll never root out biggest cause of foolish Sunni/Shia endless
conflicts without acknowledging those who fuel it. Again, worst players in this arena: Saudis
and Turkey (Ergodan).
I guess I'll just leave it there… could write a book on this, but so what? I think BO had one
of greatest opportunities to change course of America in huge ways, and in ways that were badly
needed for US' and world's future. He missed most of them.
And at the risk of sounding racist, I'm disappointed at so many of our High Profile African
Americans so many look up to (Oprah, Denzell…) who speak of BO with pride seemingly on advancement
socially we could elect a Black president, but have ignored these larger issues. I think they
could have done far better, to press him.
When it's all said and done, from where I site, we and the world are moving far too slowly
and blindly to do what's needed to ensure a bright future for a lot more people. Our most pressing
problems have been kicked down the road, and hardly acknowledged. I see not one current candidate
even close to addressing things the way that's needed.
Just not enough courage, clarity and truth… period.
At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined,
Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change
needed after the collapse of conservatism. Instead, Obama revealed himself as a neoliberal ideologue
who attempted to destroy progressivism and, in doing so, revived conservatism. Obama's deceit
squandered the last good chance for the nation and humanity to roll back global warming. For that
alone, history will condemn him.
As for his "substantive accomplishments," the only one even worth considering is his use of
diplomacy. But, as usual with Obama, there is sleight of hand. Yes, he has shown reluctance to
enter shooting wars. But at the same time, he doesn't hesitate to use drones and economic weapons
to inflict untold punishment and generate evermore strife and create new generations of people
who hate America. Which brings me to another point about Obama: apart from achieving his neoliberal
dystopia, Obama's primary goal appears to be that he look good and be respected. (That weakness
is why the Democrats and the Left might have inhibited Obama had they not defended and enabled
him.) From Obamacare to fracking to economic royalism to race relations, Obama wants credit now
and doesn't care that everything he has set in motion is a ticking time bomb.
All things considered, Obama is the worst president in American history. He was supposed to
be the corrective, like FDR, showing the genius once again of the American Experiment. Obama had
the mandate and he had the power but he was a liar and a fraud. Obama is an historical failure,
one from which I'm not sure we can recover.
At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined,
Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change
needed after the collapse of conservatism.
He never wanted to change the system – he merely wanted to be the guy who presided over it.
People who were paying attention, which I guess weren't a whole lot, saw pretty early that
Obama was running to the right of Hillary. There was never much of a systemic "change" promise
in what he had to offer.
He offered a change from W's bloody bluster and hope of escape from Cheney's visceral contempt
for basic decency, and sure enough… that's about as far as the Hope and Change thing went.
Policy-wise, millions of Americans were forced into poverty from which most will never emerge.
That was true under W and that is true under Obama. Economic policies are approximately consistent,
favoring the financial sector at the expense of workers and social services. The Obamacare insurance
scam might well have been implemented by a Republican president with or without a Democratic congress.
Foreign policy is different, but mostly because the failures of the Bush/Cheney model were
monumental and unsustainable. Foreign policy is marginally less terrible, marginally less bloody,
but it's no less imperialist, no less absurd, no less foolhardy.
I disagree. Bush was an abject failure in large part because he was pursuing a doctrine that
was dead. Conservatism was spent yet Bush insisted upon it until it failed floridly. But we've
had other failed presidents in out history and we've recovered. In a democracy like ours, the
ballot is supposed to provide the corrective to such political failure. And that's exactly what
Obama promised. Hope and change, remember that? But Obama lied - utterly and fundamentally - and,
in doing so, Obama wrecked what remained of the Democratic Party, sent our polity into a tailspin
and - most ominously - set us on a likely irreversible course of calamitous global warming. All
things considered, that makes Obama the worst president in American history, IMNSHO.
Bush/Cheney were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They were radicals, especially
Cheney, who saw that his mission in life was to redeem the legacy of the Nixon-Ford debacle -
by killing and displacing millions in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan, creating as much chaos overseas
as he could, and destroying what was left of a semi-egalitarian economy.
Pleased and proud of his accomplishments he is to this day. At least for his part W knows better
than to crow.
By increasing the population covered by health insurance, Obamacare also increases demand for
physicians to treat the additionally covered. Where are all those physicians going to come from?
Last year, the primary care physician who had been treating me for ten years resigned from
the practice group, and I received a letter asking me to select a physician from new members of
the practice group, who were now accepting patients. When I called, I was given a list of six
young physicians to choose from: three graduated fromf medical schools in India, one from Pakistan,
one from Colombia, and one from a local osteopathic medical school here in the United States.
Apparently, once consequence of Obamacare is a brain drain of medical practitioners from the
rest of the world, mostly trained at the rest of the world's expense.
Emotional attachment, and breaking away from the pack is hard. I never liked the President.
I thought his speeches were word salad and his books were boring and full of conventional wisdom.
I have no problem pointing out his mistakes. If you thought the Preside the was a once in a lifetime
figure in 2004, how would you feel if you decided to read his 2004 DNC speech?
-Plenty of Democrats don't want to become "racist unicorn chasers who want equality today"
or acknowledge that the people they said were loons in 2009 for suggesting Obama didn't pass rainbows
after eating were right and received undue criticism. There was a considerable amount of nastiness
directed towards Obama critics who dared point out that guys like Rahm Emmanuel were disasters
waiting to happen.
There is a good element of the population who has internalized an acceptable left-center-right
view of politics. For them judging Obama as a failure would mean judging the left and center as
failures. They have lives where they might not know the name and general background of every Senator
and just hear a simple Republican/Democrat pie fight. They then assume he GOP is dastardly clever
to have foiled Obama and his wonderful plans. Obama critics and even potential critics were drowned
out for so long the echo chamber doesn't repeat a narrative of the Team Blue Reagan admirer desperately
wants to be a Republican.
Oh, and another "tell" that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is
the phrase "Russia's land grab in Ukraine." No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US
dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements
about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty
easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia
in an election. It was a defensive move not a "grab".
Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible
damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position
to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy.
Successes? 1.) medicaid clawbacks 2.)trillions instead of billions for wall st. 3.)reproductive
rights for same sex couples 4.)drone diplomacy 5.)ice free passage through the arctic
Looks an awful lot like the "failures" list are the successes, no need to comment further
Incomplete 11.) more people living in tents, true, but not everyone yet 12.) H1b, H2b 13.) less
gun violence, yep mm hmmm 14.) shoot the potentially violent 15.) go on a congressional junket
to israel, but then come back to the house of reps, don't like, stay there forever, what would
that accomplish?
tegnost reporting from LJ, the land of no (well, extremely lame) public transportation and unabashed
HRC supporters. Think I'll sit outside the breakers and watch the world go by…
The president repeatedly lied to Americans early on in his first term when he said that the
banks had committed no crimes. The president's failure was not merely a failure in prosecuting
and jailing bankers, it was much more:
1.) illustrating to all the undeniable existence of a two-tiered justice system. There are
folks doing time for money laundering, you know.
2.) not re-establishing faith in the US financial system.
Perhaps it was a designed plan to shine a light on the corruption and hypocrisy that is Amerika,
but I kind of doubt it.
In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals
has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system
……….too bad nobody is paying attention.
One could say that all the failures of Obama's presidency have done a good job shinning a light
on all that is wrong with our country.
The terminology "Coddling corporate America" under the "Big Failures" list is much too charitable
to this administration. This hasn't been about inviting a big campaign contributor to a sleepover
at the White House, and the issues are ongoing.
More succinctly, he's the Wall St Manchurian candidate and
any benefits we the people
have derived from his Presidency have only been "trickle down" at best.
He lied at every
turn to the American people to become President in 2008 all the while knowing that once in office
his masters on Wall St would be well served. He's smart enough to fool everyone that voted for
him – is that ever worthy of praise by Democrats? No – only by the Republicans that he had emboldened.
They must have been laughing their arses off when they saw how this hope and change Presidency
was unfolding in the 1st week and every week since. He had exposed his Achilles heel the 1st week
in office, appointing one Wall St veteran after the other and the REpugs saw this and attacked.
The Republican party was on it's way out, their President had lied us into wars and into invading
other countries, torture and war crimes. But Barack alone saved them from their fates, snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory. No, nothing about BO should get a passing grade. As he said to
Hillary in 2008, the Presidency is just a figure head office (not an office for a leader). Figure
head and trickle down voodoo economics, that's about all we the people got. Oh yeah, and don't
forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never should have happened.
After major pressure and defeats in court. DADT was struck down before it was repealed, and
Obama came out for gas marriage after fighting efforts against an anti-gay referendum in North
Carolina.
I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out
the snipers and hand him a script. After all, Kennedy was killed for not following his…We have
been captive of the "deep state" for a long time. The business of America is the enabling of a
global looting. Always has been, always will be.
It was obvious from the appointment of Eric(Pardon Me)Holder, Timmy (what tax?)Geithner and
Robert Gates that nothing was going to change and that hope had left the building. Maybe that
was the point, that it was pointless to hope.
I confess I voted for him in 2008 (with reservations). The "lesser of two weevils". And perhaps
seduced by "Dreams from my Father". I didn't expect revolution, but I also allowed "hope" for
a moment. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012. And I vote in EVERY election. But I can't forget Emma
Goldman's wisdom, "If elections changed anything, they would make it illegal".
Don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never would have happened
if he had been a man of his word. He owns those too. If the scale is A to F, I'd give him a G.
I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point
out the snipers and hand him a script.
I was and I remain astonished at how Obama metamorphasized immediately after he won in 2007.
I listened to a lot of Obama speeches in 2007 and I read his books and that Obama never stepped
inside the White House. This transformation being so exquisitely executed, a suspicious mind might
consider an orchestrated conspiracy. Maybe a rational mind, too, because the alternative explanation
proves elusive.
Long before his inauguration, he was a made man. Ken Silverstein in Harper's wrote "Barack
Obama Inc" back in 2006. Black Agenda Report and Paul Street knew him from Chicago. Adolph Reed
Jr wrote earlier than that and then repeated it in 2008 in The Progressive.
He's a vacuous opportunist.I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very
beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district
in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how
to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center
of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.
– See more at:
http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508#sthash.hEiRFBaY.dpuf
There was information early that he was the corporate pick, but people chose to put their fingers
in their ears. It was the most frustrating time for me in my sojourn into politics. And it continues.
I just had a new acquaintance tell me that Obama will go down as one of the great presidents.
Sad.
Three things stand out for me from Obama's first couple of months in office that indicated
what kind of President he would be.
Appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan.
I would also throw in Sebelius as well. What did we expect from this crew of neoliberal thinkers.
We got no prosecutions of Bush war criminals or Wall St criminals, bailout of banks but not
Main St, "never let a crisis go to waste," privatization of schools, a health reform that will
ultimately self destruct and many others mentioned here.
Disappearance of the famed Obama multi million person mailing list which could have maybe
made a huge impact on the next few Congressional and Senate elections. Why did this list go
into hiding for way too many years.
Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including
HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change
went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable
housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not
enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for.
Well I unsubscribed from that Obama list about 3 months into his first term, already pissed
off and disillusioned - Rahm's appointment and some other decision at the time was the prompt.
However somehow Hillary's PAC got my name off it, and I got repeated donation requests from
the Ready For Hillary people, without an "unsubscribe" option, which to me makes it borderline
illegal spam.
And recently I got an email from Harry Reid's group, on the same address. All very fishy, and
extremely annoying.
I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President
in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history.
Some posting here ridiculed me at the time on those other blogs for those statements. Now many
comments sometimes paraphrase the same thought.
TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. That's more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?)
makes Obama the most right wing President in history and it's not even close. And the reason I
called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions
lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying "Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he
is the more effective evil." By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is
not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most
right wing of all right-wingers in the other party.
That article reminds me of the reason I left Alternet. FWIW, I used to be a dedicated commenter
there. But during the campaign in 2012, they systematically rigged their coverage (coverage is
far more important than endorsements), suppressing anything that made Obama look bad – more than
any other liberal site I followed. The final straw was when a good article by one of their own
writers was unceremoniously removed from the front page and relegated to a cubbyhole where you
wouldn't find it unless you were looking for it. That made it clear there was an editorial judgement
(probably by the publisher) to censor their reporting.
I thought that was unforgivable, so when the election was past I made a fuss in as many comments
as I could and then abandoned the site. They sell ads, so clicks are worth money to them, and
I was providing a lot of clicks. At this point, I visit it only when NC provides a link I want
to read. I doubt the publisher has changed.
This article goes beyond "cautious" to the sort of coverup they committed in 2012 (personally,
I don't think much of Rosenfeld). I'm not criticizing Yves for posting it – it's a good example
of something or other, and generated a lot of discussion. But mainly, it's an example of the difference
between NC and in-the-bag sites like Alternet or Salon, where I sometimes post links to NC articles
just to be difficult. Did it today, on the article on Obamacare by Paul Rosenberg. Remarkably,
that elicited a plug for NC from the author (Rosenberg – boy are those names easy to confuse)!
Ah yes. I remember Open Left from 2009 – 2010 very well… Just another career "progressive"
site suppressing single payer advocacy because Obama. Of course, if they'd gone full on for single
payer then, the ground would be prepared now for the real solution. So their tactics did real
damage.
"... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
"... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
"... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
"... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
"... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
"... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
"... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
"... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
"... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
"We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction
to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry
to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."
That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the
seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past
year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday
as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest
oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,"
Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State,
and the eastern city of Benghazi."
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks
in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in
Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard
told Bloomberg over the phone.
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary
operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the
group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure,
much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As
Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been
strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields,
where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."
"I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the
oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from
local security from isolated towns."
This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true
measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he
ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer
job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.
The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would
hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an
even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of
sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap
slime ball
fleur de lis
Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality
you already have.
John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his
transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.
Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy
riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag
entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.
They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin
to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks
dirty.
No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations
later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their
mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.
''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot'
'....
Blankone
You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone
in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.
It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the
resources.
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give
consent for the destruction.
Volkodav
What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you
know better, but choose dishonesty
froze25
Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had
charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees
with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control
bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced
is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family
tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio
is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian
planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist.
Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.
kita27
Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and
incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly
what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important
resources.
ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast
is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities
can be pilfered safely.
Bastiat
And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries
formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately
removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.
Hohum
Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)
Sanity Bear
In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War".
(Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).
Jack Burton
First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs
ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army
forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.
Jack Burton
Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya,
and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air
lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function
in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria
is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.
falak pema
well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.
And they get : ISIS --
Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.
trader1
we came, we saw, ...
TeaClipper
So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence
She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief.
Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread
ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really
was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.
RevIdahoSpud3
I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited,
"We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and
now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded,
we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new
complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers.
After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich!
Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special
interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen
oil has higher octane!
Duc888
Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya
"We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.
jldpc
What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker
or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it
down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American
soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end
buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any
of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that
out on their own?
BarkingCat
Lets see if I understand the plan.
Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.
Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.
Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.
Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping
the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.
Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.
Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists
and other barbarians.
When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:
Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that
has value ....oil production for example.
Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary
due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of
the story.
Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they
rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by
impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course
US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes
right.
Notable quotes:
"... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
"... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
"... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
"... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
"... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
"... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
"... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
"... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
"... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
"... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
"... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
"... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
"... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
"... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
"... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
"... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
"... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
"... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
"... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
"... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
"... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
"... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
"... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
"... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
"... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
"... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
"... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
"... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
"... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
"... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
"... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
"... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
"... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too...
Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or
infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism
i am wondering...
Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these
days.
Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after
1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power
during official communism.
Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now
(also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.
There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland...
Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but
some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of
Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you
thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that
time of communism.
Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.
The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917
had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.
....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2
as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths
during this time.
Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost
all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply
very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.
However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea,
Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries
- look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria
than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than
Communist China...
I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik
cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some
dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.
I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies
there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of
corruption
Good luck.
law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian
independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis
and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian
independence".
I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian
"moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts,
and may have involved a massacre or two.
This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of
communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However
both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and
expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What
is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As
for the temptation to compare with post WW2
denazification
in Germany, didn't the Soviet
Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of
Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance
of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.
Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!
I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.
The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead
of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What
a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers
in the business, the USA.
Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse
measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back
to Poland.
Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative
or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring
about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with
whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding
and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.
Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were
"de-communised" in the process.
The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models,
the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers
haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has,
ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.
Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would
compensate for the damage caused
. The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming
members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative
and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid.
New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming
a reality.
......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country
!! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and
if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter;
the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the
Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures
that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect
to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.
In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not
got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they
never heard of the sex pistols et al?
They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them
in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is
a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet
and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.
It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real
methode champenoise
. The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New
World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them
and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.
the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely
Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."
What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade)
in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of
people in Ukraine, too.
If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory
and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation
- yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh,
Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable
- otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together,
Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.
The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian
Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.
The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just
another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.
The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there
is nothing anybody can do about it.
Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like
that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that
way, my dear.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft
You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones
don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet
empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long
suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was
covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively
aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government
hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera
erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.
There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan.
So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.
Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt
is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort
to discredit Ukraine in Western media.
Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more
Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence
Square.
There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev
- surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be
scared of that same population.
Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history.
Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration
camps.
It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the
motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent
political entity.
Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember
McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt
of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to
the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by
order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues
of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is
the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can
actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile
it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The
vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third
of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in
Russia.
So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that
is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.
There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise
Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.
The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces
had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically
rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion
of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine
(at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.
Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always
weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.
Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost
it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian
government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and
giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than
the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.
Haven't they got anything better to do?
The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why
pick on them?
Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just
as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.
Free social health care, now that would be even better still.
If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.
Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.
Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is
gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by
the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as
good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin
himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western
Ukraine and Transcarpathia.
Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist
heroes
Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase -
uneasy
. Come on, those in
Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than
Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine,
Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.
This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"
Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing,
what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True
European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow
in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.
BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make
famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it
be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut"
times.
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too
Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and
fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When
is Guardian going to notice?
The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne".
With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is
by far more important than some "soviet" name games.
In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others.
EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given
that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy.
The current markets in Russia are now closed.
Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited
to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?
Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better
off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians
as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The
shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and
EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt
not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year
as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure.
The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as
surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following
their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this
government in power?
Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably
a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when
it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.
On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the
Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine
now will have to be genuine.
And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country
than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest
average wages in Europe.
Gabon with snow
? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!
GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level
As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing
post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have
tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level,
has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom,
at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).
Back in 2010 ,
although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing
better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening
5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened
to a projected
9% in 2015 – Ukraine
has managed to slip to rock bottom .
How does this look like on a more human level?
Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces
With a quarter of its population, Belarus is
constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building
more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.
The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its
5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No
wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.
New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels
The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an
item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism,
Ukrainian consumers were better off
during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were
doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.
And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they
now make up for having even less butter than before with the
Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.
Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels
And this
figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.
Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies.
This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign
debt crises.
To be fair, the IMF
has
indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too
surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the
Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately
be averted.
But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs
who rule Ukraine
continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing
can be ruled out.
Resumption of Demographic Collapse
Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic
terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent
– it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal
capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted
by the 2009 recession.
Since then, however, they have plummeted –
exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together
with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the
coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what
it portended for the future.
This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk,
and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in
all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor).
Here are
the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:
Births
Deaths
2013
350658
441331
2014
354622
445236
2015
329308
450763
Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated,
but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.
The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.
Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads
in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat
is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high
school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna
outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry
of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
Notable quotes:
"... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
"... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
"... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
"... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
"... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to
admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts,
murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of
outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine
didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot
down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.
All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't
be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million
compensation this time though.
TonyBlunt
4 Jan 2016
18:36
6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any
radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down
for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago?
Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.
Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings.
The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.
This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:
In 2015, Higgins
partnered with the Atlantic Council
to co-author the report Hiding
in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in
Ukraine.
. In June 2015 on
the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister
Guy Verhofstadt,
Higgins together with his report
co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk
i presented
Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament
alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya
Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov.
[11]
From wikipedia as well:
In February 2009,
James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down
in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor
and was succeeded
by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3]
In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration:
Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN
,
and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.
Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation",
[5] .
Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members
have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen
journalism anywhere.
No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments
- thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.
According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images
of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance",
the Telegraaf reports.
Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities
informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th
last year, due to routine maintenance.
Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible
for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.
According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable
and suspicious.
The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased
due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data
presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van
der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar
stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.
Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot
down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry
of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"
The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17
have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what
exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations
to the contrary from DSB.
The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew
Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the
DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused
the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage
fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris
of the aircraft".
Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the
downing of MH17,
You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height
they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down
at FL330 (33000 ft).
I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane
was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.
Thats because its not true. See above.
With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working
for bellingcat?
You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach
at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that
shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is
also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering
supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000
ft.
You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not
an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000
ft).
"Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought
down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."
Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk
which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.
It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts
to nothing more than a baseless speculation.
Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the
web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups
such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.
I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the
border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research
but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.
Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and
high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their
target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...
Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their
reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.
Consider this:
NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic
surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise,
which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the
Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided
with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the
Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic
monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track
of MH-17.
Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements
and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three
Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not
sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf
were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three
tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.
It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow
the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented
the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.
The Dutch reports says:
"The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type
warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation
report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already
had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution
before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil
aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."
"The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation
led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation
together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of
a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they
were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And
they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)
Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the
advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate
in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality
in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries
are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's
material provided to them.
The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not
having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces
of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army
was bombing the area.
How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active
over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their
claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.
Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still
left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The
points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.
"Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put
on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed
US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious
Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists
( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.
Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days
later as these transcripts was proved fake.
Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This
didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted
of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to
be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.
By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting
because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft
Rocket Brigade.
Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that
the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle
would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall
the Ukraine has its airforce.
As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will
1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map
2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing
3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast
see initial and final DSB report
4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple
terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed
not to hit but explode above the target.
The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in
missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only
one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger
None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site
is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds
questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth
The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel
deployment that was available online, NOS said.
Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".
Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet
information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study".
Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!
BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot
of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of
the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained
Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones.
The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and
refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now
if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll
get about the same results as those Iranian families
If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There
wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any
needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.
The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it
would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation
radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that
TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and
a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle
and an observation radar is easy to detect
"if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious
that Russia have supplied them"
- obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for
example:
1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions;
3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense
base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.
"... While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity. Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt. ..."
Thing is, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision were sworn in illegally one week ago.
Furthermore, the deputies were already certified as properly elected by an Chavista controlled
commission, the CNE, a separate power under the Venezuelan constitution. In addition, the constitution
states the National Assembly is the one which decides whether its certified members should be
unseated. Thus the move by Maduro, which he took one day after visiting his boss in Cuba, is illegal.
It amounts to a coup against the National Assembly.
As I wrote before, the National Assembly response is simply to ignore the Supreme Court. This
is heading towards a serious clash on and after January 5th. Lesson learned: communists are indeed
a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold
it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise
them.
Fernando Leanme: "Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use
the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also
corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them."
1. Maduro is not a communist.
He isn't even a socialist. He's a Left populist with authoritarian tendencies, albeit a lot less
authoritarian than most Latin American caudillos of the last century.
If the Chavistas were
really socialists, they would have nationalised at least the commanding heights of the economy.
They didn't. They even allowed the private sector media to keep operating, with full freedom of
the press!
2. Far from "do anything to hold [power] once they are at the top", the Chavistas held democratic
elections on schedule, and under credible conditions,
for over a decade.
Even when
they knew they were going to lose this year, they didn't call them off or falsify them. Their
attempts to stack the Supreme Court are reprehensible, but don't go anywhere near justifying Fernando
Leanme's characterisation. For that, you'd have to look at Chile under General Pinochet, at Argentina's
Dirty War, or at the Death Squad Democracies of Central America in the 80s & 90s.
3. In evaluating the situation in Venezuela, the context must be remembered.
Not only
have the Right wing opposition staged several attempts at overthrowing the government by means
of popular movements combined with economic action, but at one stage even mounted an actual military
coup. All their attempts failed, due to the fact that the Chavistas had strong support from the
population. PSUV support fell because of a range of reasons (primarily the consequences of the
low price of oil and the growing corruption of the bolibourgeoisie), but that didn't change the
nature of the Right wing opposition, which has never accepted the legitimacy of any of the Chavista
governments since 1998. My guess is that Maduro's attempt to stack the Supreme Court is a panic
reaction due to fear that, with its super-majority in the Parliament, the new government will
change the rules to ensure that the PSUV can never again be elected. And I'm far from convinced
that those fears are unjustified.
While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation
with much equanimity.
Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of
the lockout during the coup attempt.
For much of the period (not the case now), 80% of
the citizens benefited from the reforms, economically and politically.
Let them have their revolution– it may take a while to get it right. South America is the political
bright spot on the planet (IMHO) at the moment, with only Colombia still under the thumb of US
interests on a major level.
We shall see what the mess in Venezuela turns into-
"... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
"... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that
since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote
a Nobel for him.
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I
consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in
a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever
filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the
lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
"... The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the
traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the
Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free
trade, military dominance, and globalization. ..."
"... Americas imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams
are polemic in their view that Americas foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic
troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With
Americas national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more
expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm.
..."
"... A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have
done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection
could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book. ..."
The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not
of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since
roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image,
through free trade, military dominance, and globalization.
Particularly remarkable is the extent to which succeeding U.S. administrations have
maintained continuity of purpose in achieving these goals. If you think Bill Clinton and GW Bush
are radically different in their approaches to U.S. foreign policy, this book will open your eyes.
In fact, Bacevich amply demonstrates that even presidents subscribing to the realist school
of international relations have been greatly influenced by the idealism espoused by Woodrow Wilson
before the First World War. In sum, if you are a student of U.S. foreign policy, political science,
modern history, or just a concerned citizen of the "global community," this book can only serve
to increase your understanding of how the United States achieved its current status of world dominance
and what the implications of that are.
To many cynics, a book like the "American Empire" might seem like an exercise in futility.
Who could have trouble believing, after all, that America's primary strategic objective is to
create a global marketplace without barriers to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people?
But what starts as an exposition of this argument soon branches into various themes of diverse
interest yet equal importance.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, takes on conventional wisdom. For those who
are baffled by the complexity of the post Cold War world and are dismayed by America's lack of
a coherent strategy, Mr. Bacevich is reassuring: America's objective, now and in the past, has
been to promote global openness; "this books finds continuity where others see discontinuity,"
he writes, parting ways with those who believe that globalization fundamentally reshaped American
foreign policy priorities.
While this theme is ever-present, Mr. Bacevich covers a lot more ground. Perhaps his most telling
contribution is the resurrection of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams as trenchant observers
of American foreign policy. Both Beard and Williams offer their own hypotheses about why America
is driven to this ever increasing need for markets abroad. And, after this voyage into intellectual
history comes Mr. Bacevich's own argument about why America is compelled to this strategy of openness.
All three reach the same conclusion: America's imperial quest is meant to overcome problems
at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that America's foreign adventures
prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate
view and offers merely a possible explanation: With America's national cohesiveness eroding, Mr.
Bacevich writes, "an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only
`crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm."
With this in place, Mr. Bacevich moves on to a different point: American military assets, he
contends, are increasingly used to promote global openness. This heightened willingness to use
coercion has elevated the role of the military in American politics, perhaps even more so than
ever before. And, this increased militarization of American politics is playing a central, if
underappreciated, role in formulating as well as executing foreign policy.
For sure, all this is food for thought. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Bacevich has refrained as
much as possible from judgments; in fact, writing a book on such a topic whilst remaining neutral
is a feat in itself. All the same, Mr. Bacevich's military mind is evident throughout. A book
whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well
to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection
could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book.
This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual
history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned
the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist
agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble.
Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization
as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'.
The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia,
Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door.
Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because
Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides.
Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's
have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter
more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?)
I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to
the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis.
I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too
little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with
Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates,
removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to
push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda
with equally revolutionary changes?
In American Empire, Andrew Bacevich provides a fine and historically cogent analysis of American
foreign policy. Bacevich writes with clarity, skill, and historical understanding as he argues
that a new Pax American - an American Empire - is at hand. While the definition of empire and
whether United States is in fact an imperial power is debatable, the real value of Bacevich's
analysis is its identification of continuity in American foreign policy and grand strategy throughout
the Twentieth-Century.
American Empire does this by identifying U.S. attempts to promote and preserve "openness" around
the world. While this sometimes leads Bacevich to overemphasize continuity (such as ignoring George
W. Bush's willingness to ignore and alienate allies not just through policy but through diplomatic
tone), it nevertheless reveals a coherent grand strategy organizing U.S. foreign policy.
Bacevich is also sometimes too inclined to describe "globalization" as tantamount to "Americanization,"
but these minor flaws do not mar his overall analysis, which is excellent. Some have argued that
this book is anti-American, but any serious reader will find that it is hardly that. It is, however,
a subtle yet hard nosed analysis of the underlying assumptions and strategy of American foreign
policy.
Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants
to report the f**king news." is very weak.
In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and are very disciplined
in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes they report important news with minor
distortions. But to assume that they "just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naďve
if we are taking about foreign events.
Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions. Truth is the first
victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance now became a permanent business for
the USA. And Iran is considered by US establishment as an enemy.
I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH
Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages
In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes
governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W.
Bush and Bill Clinton–as well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view
that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign
policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined
"strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy
aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed
primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy,
but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.
Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital,
and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness
has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing
frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred
instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign
policy.
Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what
it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions
remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that
it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book
marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.
"... In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession? ..."
"... One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isnt enough to produce a recovery. ..."
"... The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies. ..."
"... the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the outsiders . These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges. ..."
"... I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. ..."
"... The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to export deflation. ..."
"... Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe? ..."
"... Ive been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudsons observation that The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt. ..."
"... Chinas problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china dont have that much money. Oopsie. ..."
"... The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison detre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. ..."
"... No longer benign military Keynesianism , if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns! ..."
"... I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact. ..."
"... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
"... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
I'm surprised that Hudson didn't identify as a "big story" the fact that no MSM are
reporting
that the economy has not recovered. I'm appalled every time I read that the
Great Recession "ended" in 2009, or whatever date they choose. The MSM seem to motor along quoting
from the press releases of whomever about how everything's on the upswing.
koku –
In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis
that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession?
One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But
that isn't enough to produce a recovery.
As Hudson pointed out, all it does is help the capital-owing
classes and those who are beneficiaries (as in they working in parts of finance and other sectors
that benefit from super-low rates or provide services to the capital-owing classes) with spotty
trickle-down to the rest.
Sounds like an apt description of the residual owners of claims against the assets of highly-leveraged
business associations–like the shareholders of big banks.
Thanks for this post. The article you shared the link for, emphasizes the transformative power
of principled action that risks arrest, changing first and foremost the participants. In my long
experience as an organizer I have seen the same. This kind of action helps free the person for
further action. And it can inspire others to action. Whether in resistance to a particular evil
or in constructing an alternative to the existing institutions. This is how the revolutionary
project looks today, in my view.
The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly
brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies.
They are pacified, and do not have the courage to face the police terror. Today everyone knows
that the police shoot to kill. It was a little different in the 60's. Now the police have military
weaponry from the federal government and are organized in military SWAT teams. It would take real
courage to go against that. But above all, it would take the belief that taking from the rich
is okay. And no "true American" believes that. Most of us believe that getting rich is a god-given
right, and those who cannot do it are losers.
I think the IMF backtracked a tiny bit on Ukraine by saying that they (IMF) expect Ukraine
to pay its debt to Russia but it is not a requirement for the new bailout. To which Ukraine replied
that they were never paying Russia a dime because they consider it to be an odious debt. They
are going to have a hard time making the case that all that heating oil they burned was an odious
act by Russia and their own former government hacks… we know they can't repay it and we are determined
to bail them out anyway. It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some
interesting stories.
I wish the USG would tell American citizens where the economic bomb shelters are when it declares
these wars on our former friends. Tim Geithner repeatedly told us China is not a currency manipulator
and as far as I know, Jack Lew still agrees with the assessment. So I guess we decided to fight
fair by taking a cheap nock off of a samurai sword in the chest while waving our arms around with
our heavy artillery, IMF loans and running a destroyer past fake Chinese Islands on the other
side of the world.
Then we are still friends with Europe. Friends don't let Europeans buy oil and gas from Russians.
Qatar is one option for gas, presently by LNG tanker, but the big volume is coming someday when
we get Syria all straightened out. Furthermore, we've lifted export bans on US energy product,
so more help for Europe on the way. Tho to get our fracking gas to Europe we need the LNG terminal
in Nawlings operational and it's majority funded by China. So we may need another destroyer escort
there to get the product pointed properly at Europe… but Europe must have their 11 dimensional
chess players who can figure out the brilliance in all this. But no Canadian Keystone oil for
Europe, anyway, unless Warren Buffet figures out a way to get it there.
No good news to report on citizen investment opportunities in Ukraine. My formerly favorite
international bond fund *, Templeton Global, thought it wise to accumulate half the Ukraine debt.
They just took a 20% haircut, and it may not be the last haircut. So if anyone was trying to be
an amateur bond vulture and bet that the IMF will bail out your investment, you lost that bet.
. . . There is a trade war and a financial war against Russia, China. . .
What trade war against China? Last I looked, every TV, stereo, and phone or any electronic
device in any store in the US was made in China. It isn't even possible to buy a new car without
Chinese made components in it.
Yves' comment
I would also add growing deflation risk as a big story. The collapse in commodities prices
is a symptom of the fact that China has
started
to "export" deflation.
China has been exporting deflation for decades. The collapse in commodities prices, now, is
the result of massive speculation and huge increases in prices due to ZIRP.
We haven't seen anything yet. I just bought a big pile of "vanilla" HV-transistors for some
audio amplifiers I want to make directly from AliExpress – about $3 for 200 off, including shipping.
"Here", I would pay 50 times that at the official distributor – unless I buy 5000 and up, then
it's the same price.
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices
available in the 1'st world. The Chinese shops even have customer service too, I have always managed
to get refunds / replacements when something went wrong with an order.
E-Bay and Ali is definitely the way to go for electronics parts, if they got what you want.
It's your Karmic reward for ever shopping at Radio Shack. China Post is subsidizing shipments
under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for
a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.
Now for my Radio Shack karma experience. I needed 4 common ceramic caps for a project. They
probably sell for 3 cents each in volume. Radio Shack price, $1.25 EACH. Ebay price, 20 for $1.50,
shipping included. It felt so good.
And they have only two of the three cap values you need… ;o/
That is my perpetual experience w/ RS as well in general, Home Despot w/ any hardware related
widgets –before I swore off that joint entirely.
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your
life away in 1 hour increments, actually more because I would then go on scavenger hunts to find
missing bits.
There is a street in Shenzhen called Wak Keung North Road with high-rise buildings end to end.
One is for computer parts, another for telephone stuff, another generaL electronics, video, audio,
etc., etc.
Inside each building the floor space is divided into 60 square foot booths, each rented by
a factory. They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to
go.
@ fajensen
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices
available in the 1'st world. . .
@ craazyboy
China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox
for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate
it there.
@ optimander
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your
life away in 1 hour increments . . .
@ RB Houghton
They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.
Please consider what the middleman does. They import and warehouse the items, and display those
items on a retail shelf. The counting and inventory control cost multiples of what these electronic
parts cost.
Retail and warehouse businesses are mercilessly taxed by the municipality they reside in, whether
they have a good or bad year, and they employ some of our neighbors.
As one business after another is wiped out, what profitable enterprise will be left?
Hopefully some that don't involve charging me $1.25 for a 3 cent part that's smaller than your
little pinky's fingernail and can sit on a shelf indefinitely without spoiling or going bad..
In the absence of Mutual Protectionism for Everybody, this approach offers the only hope of
short term survival to those who are the first to take it. Because if you don't do it, someone
else will. Of course in the long run, every middleman will be cut out, will go out of bussiness
and/or jobless, and will be unable to buy anything much anywhere. That will help bankrupt even
more domestic bussinesses and de-job even more domestic workers. (And of course every American
electronic-parts-maker and everyone they employed is already out of bussiness and/or unemployed
and subsisting at the WalMart level or the Dollar Tree level below that now already.) In the longest
run, it will make the American 99% as poor as the Chinese 99%, which is the long range goal of
the Global OverClass.
The only way any of us can get off this hamsterwheel-race to the bottom is if everybody gets
off it together. And the only way for us to do that is for those of us who WANT to do that to
be able to force those of us who DON'T want to do that . . . to do that anyway. And the only way
to apply that force is with the impermeable economic borders we could give ourself by abolishing
Free Trade and restoring Militant Belligerent Protectionism.
I agree that "free" trade is a big problem. If we are to have an economy that will sustain
us all, we have to be willing to pay more and have less. I actually don't think this will be all
that terrible. I am in my mid fifties and all my friends and I talk about is getting rid of all
the crap we have managed to acquire over the last twenty years. Most of it is not of a good quality,
bought cheap thanks to exploited labor in factories in the Undeveloped World. Everyone wants first
world wages for themselves, yet we all want to pay cheap prices. Something has to give – and right
now it is the wages of the working class.
the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they
can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight
groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the "outsiders".
These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges.
I think the party has ended for the west ("the white people"). Its economies are mostly based
on high brow money laundering, no future for the kids, and ever more frustrated population.
You are the best economic writer I have ever seen. Have been following others' blogs, books
and lectures for years. Bought most of your books and truly appreciate your ability to take the
hideously complex and explain in several different ways so that amateurs can understand. (Sorry
Yves, you presuppose a graduate degree in economics, but we still love you.) Love the footnotes
instead of having to flip back and forth to the back of the book. But, why, oh why, is there not
an index in "Killing The Host"? Please create one for the second edition.
I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think
is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU.
I can't help
but believe that behind the scenes various governments are working on plans to return to their
own central banks and currencies if need be. The drum beats of nationalism are just starting and
as economic conditions worsen they will only get louder.
Yves and the rest of you are absolutely right about what I left out.
I was phoned and asked to go on Skype in 10 minutes. I thought I'd have the usual 20 minutes
or so to talk. Just as I was getting started, the interview was over. So I didn't have a chance
to say what you commentators are rightly bringing up.
The economy is in a mess. It's not recovering. And instead of blaming debt deflation and the
tax shift off the FIRE sector onto labor and industry, China is blamed for not growing fast enough
to provide enough of a market to compensate for Western austerity and financialization.
There is no thought that maybe the West should emulate China and return to the idea of social
democratic industrial capitalism of a century ago, as it seemed to be evolving into socialism.
I wasn't sent a link (and still can't find the interview on TRNN's site), so i couldn't change
Haitian to Asian. But I love these machine-translators. Maybe robotization of life and culture
can only go so far …
On Canadian TV I heard someone (maybe a comedian) describe the relationship of Canada and the
US. This article brings it to mind. Basically she said (and I'm paraphrasing here),
When the US thinks of Canada at all, it thinks of it as its hat; when Canada thinks of the
US, they should think of the US as Canada's pants–and those pants are dirty.
I just think that is very funny and better than the elephant and mouse analogy. It's my joke
for the New Year.
The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to
"export" deflation.
Yes, but…as manufacture-r to-the-world, China is dependent on demand. There appears to be a
demand gap in the US and Europe, driven by austerity.
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the
plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership
though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe?
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence?
I've been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudson's observation
that "The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt."
To WS – and Washington – it doesn't really
seem to matter who holds that debt – only that they continue to be allowed to create ever more
of it. To that end, of course, the debt so created has to at least seem to be able to produce
an income stream seemingly capable of paying the economic rent, the claims on society's future
wealth its purchasers are led to believe they are buying – that or produce immediate 'capital
gains' as a substitute.
But Hudson also suggests that 'austerity' is just a prelude to seizing what remains of what
once were called 'the commons', i.e. the last remaining publicly owned assets. A variation on
this theme would be that the 0.01% at least understand what they own these days is DEBT – not
wealth. And they are anxious to exchange it for something real before the fraudulent social order
they have foisted on an anesthetized public stands revealed. See Hudson's
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
Of course, it may not be that complicated – just Davos group-think along the lines of "the
99.99% must use less so we the 0.01% can have more".
Here's what I MEANT to post (I copied the wrong text above; apologies). The choice for 2016
in Europe as well as America will be between "Yes" (independents), "Yes, please" (Democrats),
and "Yes, thank you!" (Republicans). All yes to further tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts
to "save the system," downsized social security and other social spending, and a smaller non-military
budget as "balanced budgets" mean cutbacks for what is left for the civilian economy after Wall
Street and the FIRE sector siphon off their subsidies.
NC remains the best summary of how this scenario is unfolding day to day (AM and PM installments).
The gap between its and other internet reporting and mainstream media seems to be widening.
There is a mysterious region over the Pacific where an exporters deflation transforms into
margin improvement for importers.
China's problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was
internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are
trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china don't have
that much money. Oopsie.
Exports have dropped too, implying world demand is down somewhat. But commodity prices are
probably impacted as much by ramping down internal investment consumption as by export weakness.
Of course industrial commodity producers have ramped up capacity these last 15 years to meet China's
demand. The party only goes so long.
I checked some data on Cu recently. China was importing 25% of world copper production. Half
of that was used internally, the other half got made into electrical/electronic exports. You could
probably find similar data on oil, aluminum, steel, etc…They are also a big importer of semiconductors
– and the electronic boxes get filled and shipped back out again. No iPhone deflation apparent
in the US.
***This was supposed to be a response to Synoia above.
How does the failure of the domestic economy to recover in any meaningful sense for the vast
majority of Americans contribute to an explanation of why the Russian bear, Chinese dragon, and
the Islamic caliphate now pose existential threats to the United States? Fear and economic insecurity
at home are externalized outwards beyond the homeland and justify increased military expenditures
in conjunction with the erosion of civil liberties, the increasing militarization of society,
especially within and among law enforcement, and the expansion of the national security state
– all in the name of these existential threats.
The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison d'etre of the military industrial
security [MIS] complex.
The latter now must be fed to protect economic lebensraum – global
trade routes and capital mobility. This is what makes the US Navy a force for good, right? But
it has to be on our terms. Otherwise, resistance morphs readily into terrorism or espionage in
its various forms, electronic, industrial.
No longer benign "military Keynesianism", if it
ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force
coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable.
So it will be guns!
I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours
the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage
posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion.
Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact.
No, it just seems to me that the failure of domestic policy across the board in this country
is now held hostage by the MIS complex, and its needs – economic, political, and ideological –
are driving foreign policy. Indeed, to what extent are the needs of the MIS complex responsible
for the failure of domestic policy – especially economic recovery?
I have a couple of questions, one, is austerity in the u.s and europe of a similar variety.
In europe currently it seems to me austerity is enforced as a policy choice whereas in the usa
it enforced through class warfare, play the game or live in a tent under the freeway, then after
you're in the tent under the freeway you're a "free spirit" who's chosen this way of life so your
own damn fault, live with your choices because in usa anyone succeeds who wants to. Next, I wonder
whether tpp is really a war against china, or if our genius financial engineers want china to
be the engine of growth, allow wages in china to go up but using the trade deal to isolate chinas
increased consumption and create comparative advantage by selling vietnamese goods to the chinese
through u.s. corporations thus enriching the u.s. elite? Basically extra-national globalism of
elite power. Do either of these thoughts make sense?
Close. Except another valuable trade route is US corporations (and Japan and Europe) will sell
Vietnam products (and products from other places in Asia with even worse poverty than China) back
to the US..(and their home corporate domiciles) It's also easier to put your own factories in
these places. In China, I think the Chinese guv still wants to own 51%, with some exceptions.
They don't kick in any money tho. Not that that's a terribly big problem for us because they are
overbuilt in so many industries so you just have a bidding war between Chinese companies instead.
Then in downturns, you don't have the associated debt with factory and capital equipment, and
debt deflation is now someone else's problem!
The only thing is the industrial capabilities of these other places are limited at this point.
They do clothing, Barbie dolls and disk drives. It's still Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China (coming
on) for things more sophisticated.
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that
since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote
a Nobel for him.
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I
consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in
a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever
filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the
lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers." ..."
"... Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration. ..."
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said. ..."
"... The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story." ..."
"... If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century. ..."
"... Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army ..."
"... Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists. ..."
"... There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades. ..."
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon
Papers."
In
the second chapter of his extended conversation with Arn Menconi, Daniel Ellsberg describes how,
after his trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers, he began to realize that the Vietnam War was not
an "aberration" but a representation of standard U.S. foreign policy.
"The big difference was the Vietnamese resisted us," Ellsberg explained. He says learned more
about the nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex as he dug deeper into the origins of the
conflict.
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave
a famous farewell address which popularized the term "military-industrial complex," but Ellsberg
says the outgoing president had originally intended to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional
complex," only to drop the reference to Congress at the last minute. The whistleblower explains
that allies of the military and nuclear scientists in Congress blocked Eisenhower's efforts to create
a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, inspiring Eisenhower's speech, which warned the American public
to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex."
Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military,
because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests
outside a sitting administration.
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational
corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said.
The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That
is false. That is a cover story."
Instead, he explained that the U.S. supports whatever leaders will support the country's covert
foreign policy. In addition to carrying out assassinations and interfering in those countries' elections,
the U.S. forms "close relationships with their military which we achieve through a combination of
training them … promoting the people we like, direct bribery, arms sales, arms grants - giving them
toys in other words - and helping them against dissidents."
If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg
argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial,
as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in
Chapter 1 of this series.
As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported
torturers and war crimes
for over a century.
Key policies the U.S. supports on behalf of Wall Street include "holding down the wages and selling
the local resources at very low value," according to Ellsberg, who added that the governments which
support these policies "could not stay in power in democratic elections, so we are against democracy
in those countries."
Even in places where the U.S. supports democracy, he says, such as Europe, Washington cooperates
with the elite in those countries to discourage candidates that support real change. America's leaders
in the military-industrial complex believe "[w]e run [foreign countries] better than they would run
themselves."
"Can we fix those things while maintaining the military investments …? Even we can't do that,"
he concluded.
Listen to Chapter 2 | Looking beyond Eisenhower's military-industrial complex:
RMDC 2015-12-28 18:04
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those
companies,"
Yes, of course. It was wall street tycoons and lawyers who created the OSS and CIA They
all had huge investments in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they wanted to be sure WW II
was fought with their financial interests foremost. These corporate lawyers were used to
overthrowing government around the world for their wall street clients. Donavan, the Dulles
Brothers, Wisner, and the like were world class cutthroats. They moved into the government and
took it over.
Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism'
Invisible Army. This is important. They CIA scours the earth doing the dirty work of Wall
Street. When needed, the Pentagon is called in.
Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of
multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists.
goodsensecynic 2015-12-29 00:07
There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress
just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades.
What needs to be added, however, is that the elements of ruling class domination are even more
extensive and far more complex.
We should be discussing the
military-industrial-congressional-financial-commercial-ideological-technological complex (with
the possibility of adding more pieces such as the agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical and,
perhaps, many, many more).
Although the particular connections among them may be shifting and almost kaleidoscopic, basic
patterns of economic, political and social dominance will always emerge.
By "ideological," of course, I mean the combination of the corporate media, the allegedly
"social" media, "official" education, and whatever passes for religion - especially in its
"fundamentalist " aberrations in the Abrahamic cultures.
And, a final caveat: the above merely identify aspects of the "domestic" power structure. It
is also replicated globally with many of the same "players" shifting natural resources,
information technology, capital and currency around in a way that may be permanently beyond
the reach of the governments of even the most powerful semi-sovereign nations.
anarchteacher 2015-12-29 00:55
What Daniel Ellsberg, Dwight Eisenhower, C. Wright Mills, and numerous others have outlined
is what the incomparable Peter Dale Scott now describes as the deep state:
Nowhere do I see reference to John Perkins, the author of "Confessions of an Economic
Hitman." Perkins lays all of this out clearly and concisely, and includes the World Bank and
The WMF, (The World Monetary Fund).
One of their tactics is to loan an emerging nation huge amounts of money which they can
never pay back. In return they will allow Western bank and oil interests, pharmaceuticals ,
bio-tech, copper, etc. whatever natural resources that Western Capitalists want to exploit.
Perkins is sent in to meet with the leaders. He tells them the money is theirs to do whatever
they like. Use it for their country or for themselves.
Some of the leader are actually honorable and refuse the money. Perkins then pulls out the
big warning: Take the money or die by assassination. Some leaders refused. Within six months
the Capitalists sent in what Perkins calls "the jackals". The honorable leader is
assassinated.
There are people even now, doing what he did.
Activista 2015-12-29 12:51
1 trillion + military waste is corrupting/destroying USA. We need to get rid of this
burden.
Vardoz 2015-12-29 14:57
We are being systematically impoverished and destroyed by corporate interests. Elizabeth
Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only senators who do not vote against our better interests
and want to protect the health, safety and welfare of the 99%. As Biden once called it we the
people are being subjected to economic terrorism.
judithehrlich 2015-12-29 17:27
If you'd like to know more about Daniel Ellsberg please see the website for our
Oscar-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in American, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon
Papers", www.mostdangerousman.org . Edward
Snowden was inspired to act after seeing the film.
Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.
"Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world
continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.
"There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian
airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.
"We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for
war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has
exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the
regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over
Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests
are protected going forward.
Thanks to the
awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself
with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and
purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise
to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from
expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.
In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces
two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in
concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and
ultimately, to the Russian army.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
But
there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why
the 
Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash
Sara
Vakhshouri is founder and president of SVB Energy International, a strategic
energy consulting firm based in Washington, DC. She advises international
corporations, think tanks, investment banks, and law firms on global energy
markets, geopolitics of energy, and investment patterns. During 2000-08,
she worked in the public and private sectors of the Iranian energy industry.
From 2004 to 2005, she worked as an advisor to National Iranian Oil Co.
International, a division responsible for marketing and sale of Iranian
crude oil and products. Vakhshouri holds a PhD in energy security and Middle
Eastern studies and was a visiting fellow at Oxford Institute for Energy
Studies. She has MA degrees in business management (international marketing)
and international relations. 
A really interesting analyses
of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate
that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. " 
